CELEX: C1997/054/61
Language: en
Date: 1997-02-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 27 December 1996 by Immacolata Manzo against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-221/96)

22 . 2 . 97           EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 54/37
all trade with Iraq and Kuwait. The applicant sued in the                        the decision not to promote her to grade C 1 for the
Greek courts and succeeded in obtaining a judgment                               year 1996 (published in Administrative Notice No 933
ordering the Central Bank of Iraq to pay it the amount of                        of 9 April 1996 ),
US $ 75 451 500, but execution of that judgment proved
impossible . The damage suffered by the applicant consists
precisely in the fact that it is impossible to enforce its                  — order the Commission to pay the costs.
claim. The applicant transfers the said contractual claim
against the Central Bank of Iraq to the European Union                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
and asks it, on the basis of Article 215 of the Treaty, to
pay it compensation of an equal amount.
                                                                            The applicant maintains that it is an established fact,
                                                                            which the Commission does not challenge in the contested
The applicant maintains that all the conditions giving rise                 decision, that she was of greater merit than other officials
to the non-contractual liability of the European Union are                  who were promoted to grade C 1 during the 1996
met. In particular it maintains that when Regulation                        promotions exercise . She argues that, accordingly, by
( EEC ) No 2340/90 (') was adopted the defendant                            refusing her that promotion, the Commission acted
Community bodies infringed the general principles and                       contrary to the principle of non-discrimination and
rules of Community law, specifically the principles of                      infringed Article 45 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations .
protection of property, equal treatment and the
prohibition of discrimination, prohibition of abuse of
powers, proportionality, protection of economic freedom
and protection of legitimate expectations .
The applicant considers that there is no need for breach of                 Action brought on 2 January 1997 by Jean-Luc Delhaye
a superior rule of law for the protection of the individual,                     against Commission of the European Communities
as has been held in the case-law of the Court with regard
                                                                                                     ( Case T-l/97)
to legislative acts, since Regulation ( EEC ) No 2340/90
does not constitute a legislative act, but in substance an                                            ( 97/C 54/62 )
act of a direct and individual character.
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
O Council Regulation ( EEC) No 2340/90 of 8 August 1990
    preventing trade within the Community relating to Iraq and
    Kuwait, ( OJ No L 213 , 9 . 8 . 1990, p. 1 ).                           An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                            Instance of the European Communities on 2 January 1997
                                                                            by Jean-Luc Delhaye, resident in Thieu, Belgium,
                                                                            represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                            address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                            Christian Kremer, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
Action brought on 27 December 1996 by Immacolata
Manzo against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        ( Case T-221/96 )
                                                                            — annul the Commission's decision of 25 September
                           ( 97/C 54/61 )
                                                                                 1996, notified to the applicant on 1 October 1996,
                                                                                rejecting his complaint of 28 May 1996 ( registered on
                 (Language of the case: French)                                 4 June 1996 ) and refusing to award him the
                                                                                installation allowance provided for in Article 5 of
                                                                                Annex VII to the Staff Regulations,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                           — order the defendant to bear the costs .
Instance of the European Communities on 27 December
1996 by Immacolata Manzo, residing in Brussels,
represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Christian Kremer, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                            The applicant states that when he was re-posted to
                                                                            Brussels on his return from the Commission Delegation to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Kiev the Commission's administration refused to grant
                                                                            him an installation allowance . He contests that decision
                                                                            and alleges infringement of Article 71 of the Staff
— annul the express decision of 25 September 1996                           Regulations and of Article 5 of Annex VII to those
     rejecting the applicant's complaint, submitted to the                  regulations, as well as infringement of Article 110 of the
     appointing authority on 17 June 1996 , challenging                     Staff Regulations and abuse of power.