CELEX: C2003/101/74
Language: en
Date: 2003-04-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-45/03: Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Riva Acciaio S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

C 101/40               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        26.4.2003
      or at the very least confidential, information by the                     were officials of the Commission in Luxembourg, the
      representative of the European Commission in Marseille;                   cost of the sea passage from Brindisi to various Greek
                                                                                frontier posts (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of
—     order the defendant to pay all the recoverable costs,                     an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;
      which amounts to EUR 10 000.
                                                                          —     annul all the applicants’ reimbursement statements
                                                                                implementing the decisions annulment of which is
                                                                                sought;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     pay the applicants the entire amount which is outstanding
                                                                                as a result of the implementation of the decisions
The applicant claims that, during a meeting in Marseille on                     annulment of which is sought, together with interest at
23 January 2003, a representative of the defendant divulged                     the legal rate;
deceitful or at the very least confidential information. Such
disclosure resulted in damage for which it seeks compensation             —     order the Commission to pay the costs, expenses and fees
in the present application. In support of its arguments, the                    incurred.
applicant alleges non-contractual liability of the defendant in
the context of Article 288 EC and alleged breach of the
confidentiality obligation imposed on the representative of the
defendant by Article 287 EC.                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          In the present case, the applicants seek the annulment of the
                                                                          decision of the Commission changing the procedure for
                                                                          calculating the annual expense of travelling to Greece.
Action brought on 7 February 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef                      In support of the (main and alternative) arguments for
and Others against Commission of the European Com-                        annulment, the applicants essentially rely on six pleas in law
                            munities                                      alleging, first, infringement of Article 71 of the Staff Regu-
                                                                          lations and of Articles 7 and 8 of Annex VII thereto;
                                                                          second, breach of the principle of non-discrimination; third,
                         (Case T-44/03)                                   infringement of the rights of the defence; fourth, breach of the
                                                                          principle that arbitrary procedures are prohibited and of the
                        (2003/C 101/73)                                   obligation to provide a statement of reasons; fifth, breach of
                                                                          the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and
                                                                          of the rule ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’; and sixth, breach
                   (Language of the case: French)                         of the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
                                                                          officials.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 February 2003 by Giorgio
Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), and 49
other officials, represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                        Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Riva Acciaio S.p.A.
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                                                    (Case T-45/03)
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      changing, in respect of 1993, 1994 and 1995 or the                                           (2003/C 101/74)
      period within those years during which the applicants
      were officials of the Commission in Luxembourg, the
      procedure for calculating the annual expense of travelling                              (Language of the case: Italian)
      to Greece in respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken
      into consideration for certain destinations;
      alternatively,                                                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority          European Communities on 6 February 2003 by Riva Acciaio
      to reimburse, in respect of 1993, 1994 and 1995 or the              S.p.A., represented by Aurelio Pappalardo, Massimo Merola,
      period within those years during which the applicants               Maurizio Pappalardo and Federica Martin, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- 26.4.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 101/41
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Primarily:
                                                                          —     partially annul, on the basis of Article 230, EC Treaty,
                                                                                Council Decision 2002/947/EC of 12 December 2002
1.    annul Article 1 of the decision in so far as it states that               implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/
      the applicant was involved in a single, comprehensive                     2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against
      and ongoing cartel in the Italian market for solid and                    certain persons and entities with a view to combating
      hollow round reinforcing rods, the purpose of effect of                   terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ L 337,
      which was to fix prices by, inter alia, restricting or                    p. 85) and more specifically annul Article 1, point 1.25
      controlling production or sales;                                          of said decision and annul partially Article 1, point 2.14
                                                                                of said decision insofar as it mentions the name of the
2.    annul Article 2 of the Commission’s decision in so far as                 applicant;
      it imposes a fine of EUR 26,9 million on the applicant;
                                                                          —     declare illegal, on the basis of Article 241, EC Treaty,
In the alternative:                                                             Council Regulation EC 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001
                                                                                on specific restrictive measures directed against certain
—     reduce the fine of EUR 26,9 million imposed on the                        persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism
      applicant by Article 2 of the decision, and                               (OJ L 344, p. 7);
In any event:
                                                                          —     require the Community to compensate the applicant on
                                                                                the basis of article 235 and 288 in an amount to be fixed
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    ex aequo et bono of not less than EUR 100 000;
                                                                          —     require the respondent parties to bear the costs of suit.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action is brought against the same decision as that
challenged in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission.                             Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those
in that case.                                                             The applicant lives in the Netherlands and, in 1992, was
                                                                          recognized as a refugee in accordance with the Geneva Refugee
                                                                          Convention because of valid reasons of fear of persecution in
                                                                          the Philippines. The applicant was active in the Communist
                                                                          Party of the Philippines and is a consultant for the negotiating
                                                                          panel of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines in
                                                                          the peace negotiations with the government.
Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Jose Maria Sison
against the Council of the European Union and the                         On 28 October 2002, the Council adopted decision 2002/
          Commission of the European Communities                          848/EC (1) and included the applicant on the list made pursuant
                                                                          to article 2 (3) of Regulation 2580/2001 on specific restrictive
                                                                          measures directed against certain persons and entities with a
                         (Case T-47/03)                                   view to combatting terrorism (2). The applicant was also
                                                                          included in the list adopted by decision 2002/974/EC (3) of
                                                                          12 December 2002. This last act is being contested in the
                        (2003/C 101/75)                                   present application.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          In support of its application, the applicant invokes a violation
                                                                          of the obligation to state reasons, a patent error of judgment
                                                                          and a violation of the principle of sound administration. The
An action against the Council of the European Union and the               applicant indicates that he has not, as an alias, Armando
Commission of the European Communitie was brought before                  Liwanag and is not in charge of the New People’s Army (NPA).
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                The applicant furthermore claims that the contested decision
6 February 2003 by Jose Maria Sison, Utrecht, the Netherlands,            violates the principle of proportionality and the freedom of
represented by Mr Jan Fermon, Lawyer.                                     circulation of capital.