CELEX: C1995/268/58
Language: en
Date: 1995-10-14 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 18 August 1995 by Lino Liao against the Council of the European Union (Case T-161/95)

14 . 10 . 95          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 268/27
contained in each consignment, the obligation to provide            reasons, contrary to the second paragraph of Article 25 of
security to each of the intervention agencies, and the              the Staff Regulations of officials .
requirement that tenderers must have a commercial
structure in each Member State . The refusal of the                 The applicants also plead an infringement of the terms of the
applicant's tender occurred during a period of one and a half       notice of competition, in that the selection board failed to
years throughout which the defendant, contrary to its               have regard to the nature of the oral test as described in the
former practice, either did not sell any intervention tobacco       said notice . They consider, first, that the candidates from the
at all or sold only to very large international undertakings,       Secretariat, into which category the applicants fall, were
thereby preventing small and medium-sized undertakings in           treated less favourably than their colleagues engaged in
the tobacco sector from obtaining any supplies whatever.            work falling directly within the administrative, budgetary,
                                                                    financial, accounting or technical fields, inasmuch as the
The applicant considers that the Commission has                     files to be dealt with for the purposes of the tests related only
committed a manifest breach of overriding principles of law,        to those fields and not to the Secretariat .
such as the principles of equality and proportionality, and
also a manifest error of assessment, by preventing the entire
class of small and medium-sized Greek undertakings from             They further point out that not all of the members of the
participating in the tendering procedures . The damage thus         selection board participated in all of the oral tests for all of
caused to the applicant goes far beyond the normal risks            the candidates; consequently, the contested decisions were
inherent in the      exercise   of activities  in the   sector      adopted in breach not only of the rules governing the
concerned .                                                         activities of selection boards but also of the principle of
                                                                    non-discrimination and equal treatment between
                                                                    candidates .
                                                                    Lastly, the applicants consider that the decision whereby,
                                                                    despite the defendant's undertaking to provide for 60 posts
Action brought on 10 August 1995 by Luigia Dricot and 29            with a view to upgrading category C posts to category B
others against the Commission of the European                       posts, the number of candidates admitted to the oral tests
                          Communities
                                                                    was limited to 120 constitutes evidence not only of a breach
                       ( Case T-159/95 )                            of the obligation laid down in the fifth paragraph of
                         ( 95/C 268/57 )                            Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations but also of an
                                                                    intention to limit in advance the number of successful
                                                                    candidates .
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 10 August 1995
by Luigia Dricot, Roland Cardoen, Carrelo da Cunha,
Martine Cluyssen, Marie de Wasseige, Rosa De Briones,
Marie-Thérèse De Smedt, Anna Maria Del Grande,                       Action brought on 18 August 1995 by Lino Liao against the
Pascaline Deuquet, Mari Doncel , Valente Erasmo, Karine                             Council of the European Union
 Eulaerts, Lorella Feltrin, Yolanda Focci , Christa Forman,                                 ( Case T-161 /95 )
 Rodriguez Guadalupe, Odette Hubert, Jocelyne Husson,                                         ( 95/C 268/58 )
 Sheila Kinsella , Rosario Martinez Berzal , Maria
 Maurer-Reichl , Giordano Merletti, Erik Neesgaard, Marina
 Ogle, Soren Sorensen, Luciana Tenivella, Christiane Unden,                          (Language of the case: French)
 Myriam Van Dam, Rita Verschuren and Aurore Zanchet,
 represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure,
 Véronique Leclercq and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,          An action against the Council of the European Union was
 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
 Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener.                              Communities on 18 August 1995 by Lino Liao, residing in
                                                                     Brussels, represented by Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten and
                                                                     Constantin Nikis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
 The applicants claim that the Court should:                         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
 — annul the decision of the selection board for internal            Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
     competition COM/B/9/93 awarding the applicants a
     lower mark for the oral test than the minimum required          The applicant claims that the Court should :
     and excluding them from the list of successful
     candidates,                                                     — annul the contested staff report,
 — order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                     — award the sum of Bfrs 250 000, to be increased or
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      decreased as appropriate during the course of the
                                                                          proceedings, as compensation for the material damage
 The applicants maintain, first that the contested decisions              suffered by the applicant in consequence of his having
 are vitiated by the complete absence of any statement of                 been denied any chance of promotion,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 268/28           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14 . 10 . 95
— award the sum of Bfrs 75 000, to be increased or                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
     decreased as appropriate during the course of the
     proceedings, as compensation for the non-material              — order the Commission to pay the difference between his
     damage suffered by the applicant,                                   salary as an official and his invalidity pension from
                                                                         1 August 1991 until the date when he reaches
— order the Council to pay all of the costs .                            pensionable age under the Staff Regulations of officials
                                                                         ( 31 January 2006 ), by way of compensation for the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      material damage suffered by the applicant, that
                                                                         difference amounting, on a provisional assessment, to
                                                                         Bfrs 15 000 000 + Bfrs 12 500 000, and order the
The applicant seeks the annulment of his staff report for the            Commission to calculate the first of those sums,
period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1993 .
                                                                    — order the Commission to pay ECU 1 000 000 by way of
The applicant states in that regard that at the time when, on            compenstion for the non-material damage suffered by
8 December 1994, he signed the draft staff report drawn up               the applicant,
by the first assessor, endorsing thereon the comment 'I do
not agree with the assessments made by the first assessor and      — order the Commission to pay interest at the rate of 10 %
wish to have a meeting with the-isecond assessor for the                 per annum on the capital sum of Bfrs 25 794 194
purposes of revising the report', the second assessor had                received by the applicant pursuant to Article 73 of the
already signed the report in question 10 days previously.                Staff Regulations, such interest, provisionally assessed in
                                                                         the sum of Bfrs 15 000 000, to be calculated from
Since the normal procedure had not been followed, the                    1 January 1990, alternatively from 10 June 1991 at the
defendant drew up a fresh report covering the same period.               latest, until payment in full of that capital sum,
That new report refers to a discussion on 17 May 1 995 and
purports to have been signed on the same date by the first         — in so far as may be necessary, annul the decision of the
and second assessors .
                                                                         Commission of 22 September 1994 refusing the
                                                                         applicant's request of 15 May 1994 ,
The applicant pleads, first, an infringement of Article 43 of
the Staff Regulations and of the guide to staff reports, in        — order the Commission to pay all of the costs .
that, despite the fact that those two instruments provide for
a periodical report to be drawn up at least once every two
years, on 1 July in every odd year, in the present case the         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
initial report was not communicated to the applicant until
November 1994 , that is to say, over 15 months late .               The applicant states that he worked in the Berlaymont
                                                                    building in Brussels from the time when it was constructed,
He further pleads that the procedure followed was irregular,        in 1967, until 1987, when he was transferred to another
in that it is apparent from an examination of the initial           building. As a result of his exposure to asbestos over a
report that it was signed by the first and second assessors        period of nearly twenty years, he developed an illness . On
before being signed by the applicant, despite the fact that the    26 November 1990 the applicant submitted a request for the
applicable rules provide for the report to be signed by the         recognition of his illness as an occupational disease . On
second assessor after the official concerned has been given         16 July 1991 the appointing authority decided to retire him
an opportunity of making comments or remarks thereon .              from 1 August 1991 and to grant him an invalidity pension
                                                                    determined on the basis of the third paragraph of Article 78
                                                                    of the Staff Regulations of officials . It was not until 15 April
                                                                    1994, after a lengthy and complex procedure, that the
                                                                    appointing authority finally acknowledged the occupational
                                                                   nature of the disease afflicting the applicant.
Action brought on 29 August 1995 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni             The applicant considers that the Commission's conduct in
  against the Commission of the European Communities                relation to him was unlawful, since it required him to work
                                                                    in an environment contaminated by asbestos,
                        Case T-165 /95 )                            notwithstanding that it knew of, or could not in any event
                         ( 95/C 268/59 )                            have been unaware of, the dangerous nature of that
                                                                    substance, particularly as regards persons performing tasks
                                                                    of an administrative nature in such an environment .
               (Language of tbe case: French)
                                                                    As a result of that misconduct on the part of the
An action against the Commission of the European                    Commission, the applicant has suffered material damage,
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   inasmuch as , first, he has received, since 1 August 1991 , an
Instance of the European Communities on 29 August 1995              invalidity pension in a sum lower than the remuneration
by Arnaldo Lucaccioni , residing in Paris, represented by           which he would have received if he had not been retired on
Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Olivier Eben, of the           the ground of invalidity and, second, he has been forced to
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at          sell his immovable property quickly, and thus at a reduced
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener.,              price, in order to make early repayment of the sums