CELEX: C1997/357/64
Language: en
Date: 1997-11-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 23 September 1997 by Rui Teixeira Neves against the Court of Justice of European Communities (Case T-259/97)

C 357/34                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 11 . 97
Commerciali Industrial^, whose registered office is at                   Instance of the European Communities on 23 September
Bologna, Societa Sadam Castiglionese SpA, whose                          1997 by Rui Teixeira Neves, represented by Adriano
registered office is at Bologna, of the Sadam Zuccherifici               Encarna^ao, of the Oporto Bar, with an address for
Group and Societa Zuccherificio del Molise SpA, whose                    service in Luxembourg at the applicant's address, 100 Rue
registered office is in Termoli, and Societa S.F.I. R. ( Societa         de Steinsel, L-7254 Bereldange.
Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA), whose registered
office is at Cesena, represented by Bernard O'Connor,                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Solicitor of the High Court of Ireland, Ivano Vigliotti and
Paolo Crocetta, of the Genoa Bar, with an address for
                                                                         — annul the decision of the appointing authority of
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsene                               20 January 1997 which imposed on the applicant the
Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire.                                         disciplinary measure of relegation in step and
                                                                              accordingly order backdated payment of that part of
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                   the remuneration which he did not receive as a result
                                                                              of that decision together with default interest at 8% ,
— declare void or annul, pursuant to Articles 173 and
       174 of the EC Treaty, Regulation ( EC) No 1188/97 of              — order the defendant to pay to the applicant BF two
      25 June 1997, in so far as it concerns the applicants                   million by way of compensation for the non-material
      or, in the alternative, declare void or annul that                      damage caused by the contested decision,
      regulation erga omnes, in particular as regards
      Article 1 ( f),
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay all the costs, including
                                                                              those incurred by the applicant.
— declare inapplicable, pursuant to Article 184 of the EC
      Treaty, Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 of 30 June
       1981 and subsequent amendments thereto, in so far as              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       it concerns the applicants, in particular as regards
      Articles 3 ( 1 ), 5 ( 3 ) and 6 (2 ),                              The applicant objects to the way in which the appointing
                                                                         authority conducted the disciplinary proceedings which
— order the Council, pursuant to Article 178 and the                     resulted in the disciplinary measure challenged in the
       second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, to              present case .
      make good all the damage caused to the applicants,
       taking into account accrued interest and currency                 In support of his application the applicant relies on the
       fluctuations,                                                     following:
— order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.                   1 . Gross and total breach of the principle of the division
                                                                               of powers .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          2 . Alteration and blatant manipulation of the content of
The pleas and main arguments are those relied on in Case                       the motion objected to, put forward in the Staff
T-l 68/95 Eridania and Others ('). More particularly, the                      General Assembly of 2 September 1995 .
applicants consider that the contested regulation is
unlawful on the grounds of belated adoption, inadequate                    3 . Error in law inasmuch as the applicant did not
statement of reasons, arbitrary classification of Italy as a                   conduct himself in a manner contrary to paragraph 1
deficit area and discrimination against the Italian sugar                      of Article 11 , paragraph 1 of Article 12 and Article 21
industry. They also claim that Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/                     of the Staff Regulations but merely sought
81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organization of the                           scrupulously to comply with those provisions.
markets in the sugar sector ( 2 ) is in part inapplicable .
                                                                           4. The allegations against him are unlawful in that the
H OJ C 229 , 11 . 11 . 1995 , p. 6 .
( 2 ) OJ L 177, 1 . 7. 1981 , p . 4 .
                                                                                Court of First Instance did not complain that it had
                                                                                been offended.
                                                                           5 . Breach of the rights of the defence, of the principle
                                                                               audi alteram partem and of the principle of equality
                                                                               of arms, inasmuch as, first, the allegation was not
Action brought on 23 September 1997 by Rui Teixeira                            communicated to the applicant before the hearing of
          Neves against the Court of Justice of European                        3 October 1995 and, secondly, the party levelling the
                               Communities                                      accusation participated in the administrative
                                                                               committee's deliberations on the disciplinary
                            ( Case T-259/97 )                                  proceedings .
                              ( 97/C 357/64 )
                                                                           6 . Breach of the presumption of innocence, since guilt
                (Language of the case: Portuguese)                             was considered an irrebutable presumption and its
                                                                                mere challenge taken as an aggravating factor. In this
An action against the Court of Justice of the European                          regard the intention was to interfere with the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                               proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 11 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 357/35
  7 . The Disciplinary Board lacked independence as a                       refusal to take into account, in calculating Category B
       result of deferential fear and fear of reprisals against             licences, its normal reference quantity (which is that of
       the careers of its members. The applicant claims that                the three years immediately prior to the outbreak of
       there was an attempt to interfere with a witness's                   the war in Somalia ),
       deposition.
                                                                      — in the alternative, order the Council, pursuant to
  8 . Breach of the freedom of trade union activity and of                  Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215
       the privileges of the staff committee and of the                     of the EC Treaty, to pay compensation to Camar in
       general assembly of the staff.                                       the event that the Court should decide that that
                                                                            institution is liable for not having adopted a specific
  9 . Misuse of powers.                                                     provision in Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 H allowing
                                                                            situations such as that of Camar to be resolved,
10. Breach of the principle of proportionality inasmuch
       as there were no grounds for making the disciplinary           — order the Commission and/or the Council to pay the
       measure more severe. In this regard, the applicant                   costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.
       points out that the disciplinary measure annulled in
       Case T-500/93 was deferment of advancement to a
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       higher step for two years, that the Disciplinary Board
       had proposed that the official be reprimanded and
       that one of the charges constituted actual                     The applicant company is the same as that in Case T-172/
       misconduct. In the present case, despite the fact that         97 Camar v. Commission (2), which involved proceedings,
       the misconduct relied on is manifestly non-existent            alleging failure to fulfil obligations, seeking that the non­
       and that the Disciplinary Board delivered the                  member country licences normally allocated to it as a
       unanimous opinion that the official should be                  Category B operator should be quantified, not on the basis
       acquitted, the disciplinary measure was even more              of imports over the three-year period provided for under
       severe .                                                       Article 4 of Regulation No 1442/93 , but rather on the
                                                                      basis of imports over the years 1988 , 1989 and 1990 . The
                                                                      present application is directed against the express decision
                                                                      rejecting the applicant's request.
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
Action brought on 25 September 1997 by Societa Camar                  already relied on in Case T- 172/97. Reference is made in
s.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities                 particular to breach of Article 30 of the basic regulation in
                and Council of the European Union                     the banana sector ( Council Regulation No 404/93 ), breach
                         ( Case T-260/97)                             of the principle of non-discrimination and of the
                                                                      fundamental rights of traders, as well as to the existence
                           ( 97/C 357/65 )                            of abuse of power by reason of an erroneous assessment
                                                                      of assumptions of fact.
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                      (') OJ L 49 , 25 . 2 . 1993 , p. 1 .
                                                                      (2 ) OJ C 271 , 6 . 9 . 1997, p. 16 .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities and the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 25 September 1997 by Societa Camar
s.r.l., represented by Wilma Viscardini Dona, assisted by
Mariano Paolin and Simonetta Dona, of the Padua Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                      Action brought on 2 October 1997 by 'D' against Council
Chambers of Ernst Arendt, Rue Mathias Hardt.                                                  of the European Union
                                                                                                  (Case T-264/97)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                   ( 97/C 357/66 )
— annul, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC
      Treaty, the Commission decision of 17 July 1997                                    (Language of the case: French)
      rejecting an application for transitional measures in
      favour of Camar under the tariff quota system for
      imports of bananas,                                             An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                      brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities on 2 October 1997 by 'D', represented by
— order the Commission, pursuant to Article 178 and                   Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and
      the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty,           Fran^oise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
      to pay compensation for the damage which Camar has              for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire
      suffered and will suffer as a result of the Commission's        Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.