CELEX: C2002/202/50
Language: en
Date: 2002-08-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-170/02: Action brought on 29 May 2002 by Maria Rosaria Ragazzini against European Parliament

C 202/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.8.2002
Action brought on 4 June 2002 by Internationaler Tier-                    According to the applicant, the contested Decision also
schutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH against the Commission of                        infringes Article 4 of the Regulation taken as a whole. The
                  the European Communities                                applicant claims that the purpose of the consultation of the
                                                                          German authorities was to enable the Commission to make an
                                                                          assessment whether an exception under Article 4(1) or 4(2)
                         (Case T-168/02)                                  was applicable. However, such an assessment was apparently
                                                                          not made by the Commission. Instead, the Commission
                                                                          indicated that a Member State has the right to veto access to
                         (2002/C 202/49)                                  documents emanating from it, which results, according to the
                                                                          applicant, in a reintroduction of the ‘authorship rule’.
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          The applicant claims furthermore that the contested Decision
                                                                          does not set out adequate reasons for refusing access and
                                                                          therefore infringes Article 253 of the EC Treaty. There is also
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 no reasoning as to why partial access to the documents was
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                denied.
European Communities on 4 June 2002 by Internationaler
Tierschutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH, represented by Scott Crosby,
                                                                          The applicant finally indicates that there is a clear public
Solicitor.
                                                                          interest in the disclosure of those documents since the project
                                                                          leading to the destruction of Mühlenberger Loch was the
                                                                          subject of much public and media comment. Therefore, the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               public should have knowledge of the facts underpinning the
                                                                          Opinion of the Commission authorising the declassification of
—     annul the Decision of the Commission of 26 March 2002               Mühlenberger Loch in order to understand how that accords
      refusing access to the documents held by the Commission             with environmental objectives and principles.
      authored by the German authorities relating to the
      expansion of the existing Daimler Chrysler Aerospace
      GmbH plant on the Elbe in Hamburg for the final                     (1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
      assembly of the Airbus A3XX on an area intended for the                 of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
                                                                              European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ
      Natura 2000 network, as the same were identified in the                 L 145, 31.5.2001 p. 43).
      applicant’s initial application of 20 December 2001 in
      Category B of Annex III to that application;
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 29 May 2002 by Maria Rosaria
                                                                                      Ragazzini against European Parliament
The applicant sought access to certain documents concerning                                       (Case T-170/02)
the Opinion of the Commission of 19 April 2002 authorising
Germany to declassify the Mühlenberger Loch, an area protect-
ed under Council Directive 92/43/EEC as part of the Natura                                        (2002/C 202/50)
2000 network. The applicant obtained access to part of these
documents. Access to the documents authored by the German                                    (Language of the case: French)
authorities and in the possession of the Commission was,
however, refused by the contested Decision following a request
to that effect made by the German authorities.
                                                                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The applicant claims that the contested Decision constitutes a            29 May 2002 by Maria Rosaria Ragazzini, residing in Faenza
breach of Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1). According             (Italy), represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and
to the applicant, Article 4(5) of the Regulation has been                 Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.
misinterpreted by the Commission. The applicant claims that,
according to the plain meaning of the words used, a request
by a third party does not place the Commission under                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
an absolute obligation to comply with that request in all
circumstances. The Commission indicated however in its                    —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 20 Feb-
Decision that Member States have a right of veto under                          ruary 2002 not to grant her the benefit of Article 73 of
Article 4(5) of the Regulation.                                                 the Staff Regulations;
 ---pagebreak--- 24.8.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 202/31
—     order payment of default interest at the rate of 5,75 %            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      with effect from 26 January 1988, the date of the
      accident, on the capital amount payable under Article 73           —      annul the ECB performance appraisal of the applicant for
      of the Staff Regulations;                                                 the year 2001;
—     make an order for damages in the amount of                         —      order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
      EUR 138 358,88 as compensation for the material and
      non-material damage which the contested decision caused
      to the applicant, such amount being provisional, subject
      to increasing it in respect of the material damage, and as
      equitable compensation for the non-material damage;                Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                         The applicant, an employee of the defendant, seeks the
                                                                         annulment of his performance appraisal for 2001. He con-
                                                                         siders that appraisal to be an act adversely affecting him
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          because the defendant did not confine itself to appraising his
                                                                         performance. Instead, the defendant based the appraisal on
Following the injuries suffered by the applicant in relation to          factual allegations which the applicant contests and which will
giving birth in 1988, the defendant, first, took the view that           impair his future career development.
the cause of the injuries was not accidental and, secondly,
acknowledged that the applicant was suffering from total
                                                                         The applicant claims that, under the provisions on data
permanent invalidity, rendering it impossible for her to work.
                                                                         protection, the defendant is prohibited from relying on
                                                                         electronically collected data and that that is, in itself, a sufficient
The applicant claims that a new fact has arisen, enabling her            ground for annulment of the appraisal based on that data.
to request afresh that she be accorded the benefit of Article 73         Moreover, the appraisal must be annulled on the ground that
of the Staff Regulations by regarding those injuries as the result       it is based on incorrect factual information.
of an accident. According to the applicant, the findings of the
Medical Committee in 1988 do not reflect her current medical
circumstances, since the sequelae have continued to wreak an
effect and worsened over the years. Furthermore, the com-
mittee did not examine the applicant’s situation with regard to
the medical accident. According to the applicant, since her
injuries were linked to the medical accident, they ought to be
regarded as accidental.
                                                                         Action brought on 13 June 2002 by Neue Erba Lautex
                                                                         GmbH Weberei und Veredlung against the Commission
Accordingly, by deciding to reject the request, the defendant                             of the European Communities
infringed Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and the Rules on
Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities
and, in particular, Articles 12, 14 and 22 thereof. Furthermore,                                  (Case T-181/02)
the applicant alleges breach of the duty to have regard to the
welfare of officials.
                                                                                                  (2002/C 202/52)
                                                                                           (Language of the Case: German)
Action brought on 12 June 2002 by Jan Pflugradt against                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                   the European Central Bank                             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 13 June
                                                                         2002 by Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und Veredlung,
                         (Case T-179/02)                                 Neugersdorf (Germany), represented by Professor U. Ehricke,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (2002/C 202/51)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         —      Annul the Commission Decision (C(2002)944 fin) of
                                                                                12 March 2002 concerning State aid by the Federal
An action against the European Central Bank was brought                         Republic in favour of Neue Erba Lautex GmbH and Erba
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  Lautex GmbH in liquidation;
on 12 June 2002 by Jan Pflugradt, represented by N. Pflüger,
lawyer.                                                                  —      Order the defendant to pay the costs.