CELEX: C1996/233/38
Language: en
Date: 1996-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 17 June 1996 by Telecom Italia SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-96/96)

No C 233/22            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10 . 8 . 96
personal reasons to move with the Centre to Thessaloniki              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
were offered the possibility of secondment for a limited
period of time . Those employees included the applicant,
who, owing to her personal and family situation , was                 The Directive which is the subject of the present action
placed, initially for 10 months, at the disposal of the               provides, inter alia, that the telecommunication
Representative Office of the European Parliament in Berlin .          infrastructures available to operators other than
The applicant states that her husband works as a                      telecommunications organizations should be liberalized
self-employed lawyer and that they have been living,                  from 1 July 1 996 , ahead of the date set for full liberalization ,
together with their two children aged two and six, in Berlin .        1 January 1998 . Furthermore , the Directive provides that
Her application for an extension of her secondment beyond             the burden arising from the provision of universal service
30 June 1996 was rejected by the contested decision of the            obligations should be borne by the undertakings providing
Director of Cedefop of 22 May 1996 . That decision , which            public telecommunications networks .
was notified to the applicant on 29 May 1996 , required her
to take up her duties on 1 July 1996 with the European
Centre for the Development of Vocational Training                     The applicant is the only firm which enjoys in Italy exclusive
( Cedefop ) in Thessaloniki .                                         rights in the field in question, which must be abolished
                                                                      according to the contested Directive , conferred on it by an
By her action , the applicant is seeking the annulment of the         Agreement concluded in 1984 with the Minister for Post
contested decision of 22 May 1996 . She complains , first, of         and Telecommunications . It is also the only undertaking
the refusal to extend her secondment in Berlin and seeks an           which provides a public telecommunications network and,
extension of her temporary secondment there until such                as such , is the only one concerned by the national scheme
time as she is able to avail herself of the interinstitutional        concerning provision of universal service obligations .
mobility afforded by Article 29 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the Staff              Moreover, the latter obligations are significantly more
Regulations of officials . In addition , she complains of the         onerous for the applicant than in other Member States
order requiring her to take up her duties with the European           inasmuch as the particular oreography of Italy requires the
Centre for the Development of Vocational Training                     setting up and maintenance of special operations in order to
( Cedefop ) in Thessaloniki on 1 July 1996 .                          be able to offer to all citizens a voice telephony service at an
                                                                      affordable price .
The further pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
those in Case T-85 /96 .
                                                                      In the view of the applicant, the contested Articles should be
                                                                      annulled on the grounds of their inadequate statement of
                                                                      reasons, lack of competence of the Commission under
                                                                      Article 90 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty, abuse of process ,
                                                                      infringement of the principle of proportionality between the
Action brought on 17 June 1996 by Telecom Italia SpA                  objective pursued and the means used to attain it,
  against the Commission of the European Communities                  infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the
                                                                      protection of legitimate expectations, infringement of the
                         ( Case T-96/ 96 )                            general principle of institutional balance and, finally,
                           ( 96/C 233/38 )                            infringement of the fundamental right to property,
                                                                      enshrined in the European Convention on Human
                (Language of the case: Italian)                       Rights .
An action against the Commission of the European                      The applicant maintains in particular that :
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 1996 by
Telecom Italia SpA, whose registered office is in Turin ,             — the defendant has infringed the provisions laid down by
                                                                          the Council in its resolutions on the timetable for
represented by Mario Siragusa , of the Rome Bar, Giuseppe
Scassellati-Sforzolini , of the Bologna Bar, and Matteo Bay,              liberalization and encroached on the powers of the
of the Milan Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg               Council itself and the European Parliament under
at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen .                             Article 100a of the EC Treaty on the harmonization of
                                                                          the financing scheme of universal service costs ,
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      — only Article 86 and Regulation 17/62 should be applied
— annul      Article    2     (2 ) of  Commission      Directive          with regard to the conduct of undertakings rather than
    96/1 9/EC ( 1 ), inasmuch as it provides for the early                Article 90 which, by definition, concerns State
                                                                          measures ,
    liberalization of alternative infrastructures , and
    Article 4c thereof inasmuch as it requires Member States
    to establish a financing scheme of universal service              — there are other means of attaining the objectives of the
    obligations to be entrusted exclusively to undertakings               Commission , either by the full liberalization of the
    providing telecommunications networks ,                               telecommunication markets , in particular by amending
                                                                          Directive 92/44 , applying Article 86 to those
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                  undertakings found to be abusing their position, or by
 ---pagebreak--- 10 . 8 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 233 /23
    imposing in a more proportionate manner requirements                Secondly, the applicant maintains that the decision of
    for contributions to the costs of universal services .              26 July 1988 has been disregarded, in that, first, the
                                                                        contested decision was adopted out of time and, secondly,
(') OJ No L 74 , 13 . 3 . 1996 , p . 13 .                               the procedure leading to that decision was not transparent
                                                                        and the applicant was not consulted but confronted with a
                                                                        fait accompli.
Action brought on 21 June 1996 by Mario Costacurta                      Thirdly, according to the applicant, the contested decision
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    does not comply with the requirements entailed by the duty
                                                                        to state reasons .
                          ( Case T-98/96
                            ( 96/C 233/39 )                             Lastly, the applicant argues that the Commission infringed
                                                                        in his case the principles of the protection of legitimate
                  (Language of tbe case: Frencb)                        expectations and of legal certainty, impaired both his
                                                                        legitimate non-pecuniary and pecuniary rights and misused
An action against the Commission of the European                        its powers .
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 21 June 1996 by
Mario Costacurta , residing at Kinshara ( Zaïre ), represented
by Nicolas Decker, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 16
Avenue Marie-Thérèse .
                                                                        Action brought on 27 June 1996 by Maria Elisabeth Wolf
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul        the   decision     of   the  Committee    for  the                              ( Case T-101 /96 )
    Administration of Delegations of the Commission of the                                       ( 96/C 233 /40 )
    European Communities , confirmed by the appointing
    authority, contained in Notes No 17493 of
     14 December 1995 , No 8908 of 30 April 1 996 ,                                     (Language of tb e case: Frencb)
    No 14515 of 31 May 19 96 and the appointing
    instrument of 31 May 1996 , assigning the applicant to              An action against the Commission of the European
    the Office for Official Publications of the European                Communities was brought before the Court of First
    Communities in Luxembourg,                                          Instance of the European Communities on 27 June 1 996 by
— order the Commission to pay all expenses and costs                    Maria Elisabeth Wolf, residing at Mamer ( Grand Duchy of
    incurred in these proceedings , together with those                 Luxembourg ), represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry
    relating to the procedure for interim relief.                       Demaseure and Ariane Tournel, all of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                        an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener.
The applicant, a Commission official , who has been serving             The applicant claims that the Court should :
with the Commission's delegation to Zaïre for three years,
contests the appointing authority's decision reassigning him
to the Office for Official Publications of the European                 — annul the decision not to admit the applicant to
Communities in Luxembourg .                                                 competition COM/A/955 ,
The applicant alleges , first, infringement of the rotation             — order the Commission to pay the applicant ECU 1 in
system established by the Commission's decision of 26 July                  symbolic damages for the non-material damage
1988 concerning ' orientations about the new rotation                       suffered ,
system '. That decision was taken on the basis of Articles 2
and 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, which provide                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
that officials serving in a non-member country are to be
alternately transferred between delegations and the
Commission's seat. Those provisions were infringed in that              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the Committee for the Administration of Delegations and
the appointing authority included the Office for Official               The applicant argues that, contrary to what is stated in the
Publications in the rotation system , since that body is not            reasons given for the contested decision , which refer to her
covered by the rotation system and cannot be regarded as                lack of the 12 years ' minimum professional experience
the Commission's seat. Furthermore, the applicant had not               required in the competition notice, she has more than 12
yet completed eight years ' service with the delegation , which         years' professional experience at university level acquired
means that the qualifying period for alternate reassignment             subsequently to the degree qualifying her for the
to the delegation or the seat — currently eight years — has in          competition . In her submission , it cannot seriously be
this case been disregarded . Also, the applicant was no longer          denied that the research work undertaken in preparing her
subject to that system since he had been reassigned                     doctoral thesis caused her to carry out tasks in relation to the
definitively .                                                          statistical area described in the notice of competition .