CELEX: C1995/268/56
Language: en
Date: 1995-10-14 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 24 July 1995 by Odette Nicos Petrides Co Inc against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-152/95)

No C 268/26          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 10 . 95
10 August 1982, should be penalized by payment of                     the conditions to which the Commission made subject
damages to compensate for the non-material damage                     approval of the programme in question. The applicant
suffered, to which should be added reimbursement of the               affirms in this respect that it has scrupulously complied with
fees of the doctors whom he was obliged to consult in the             both the rules and the conditions and stresses in particular
course of this procedure .                                            the fact that there was never any mention of any prohibition
                                                                      whatsoever on subcontracting. The applicant also claims
                                                                      that, in the present case, there has been a breach of the
                                                                      legitimate expectations flowing from the initial approval of
                                                                      the project.
Action brought on 20 July 1995 by INEF — Instituto
Europeu de Formaçao Profissional, Lda, against the
         Commission of the European Communities
                       ( Case T-151 /95 )
                         ( 95/C 268/55 )                              Action brought on 24 July 1995 by Odette Nicos Petrides
                                                                      Co Inc against the Commission of the European
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                                   Communities
                                                                                               ( Case T-152/95 )
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                ( 95/C 268/56 )
Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 1995 by
INEF — Instituto Europeu de Formaçao Profissional, Lda,                               (Language of the case: French)
whose registered office is at 85 Rua Breiner, Porto,
represented by Bolota Belchior, of the Vila Nova de Gaia              An action against the Commission of the European
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
Chambers of Dr Jacques Schroeder, Faltz & Associés, 6 Rue             Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1995 by
Heinrich Heine, Luxembourg.                                           Odette Nicos Petrides Co Inc, established at Kavala
                                                                      ( Greece ), represented by Edouard Didier and Joël Grange,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
— annul the decision of the Commission of 2 December
                                                                      at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 67 Rue Ermesinde .
     1991 , notified to the applicant by a letter from the
     Commission of 12 May 1995 ,                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                             — declare that the Commission has incurred liability
                                                                           pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 215 of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        Treaty of Rome,
The applicant, a Portuguese sociedade por quotas ( limited            — consequently, order the Commission to make good the
liability company ), challenges a decision of the Commission               damage suffered by the applicant and to pay to the latter
in which it decided not to consider eligible, within the                   the sum of ECU 20 403 788 ,
meaning of the Community rules on the European Social
Fund ( ESF) programmes, certain expenditure in respect of a           — order the Commission to pay all of the costs and
training programme intended for 2 740 young persons . On                   expenses, evidence of which will be supplied at a later
the basis of that decision, DAFSE ( Departamento para                      date .
Asuntos do Fundo Social Europeu — the Portuguese
 European Social Fund Agency) required the applicant to                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 repay Esc 17 323 265 and Esc 14 173 581 in connection
 with the contributions of the European Social Fund and the            The applicant, a company incorporated under Greek law,
 Portuguese State respectively in the context of financing the         engaged primarily in the processing and sale of tobacco in
 aforementioned programme .                                            Greece and abroad, claims compensation for the damage
                                                                       suffered by it as a result of the Commission's refusal , in June,
 The applicant alleges in the first place that Article 190 of the      August and November 1990 , to allocate to the applicant
 Treaty has been infringed since the contested decision does           certain consignments of tobacco held by the Greek
 not state any reasons or grounds whatsoever for finding not           intervention agency, despite the fact that it had offered the
 eligible the expenditure in question .                                best terms . Thereafter, it was not until 11 months later that
                                                                       those stocks were again placed on the market, but on terms
 Furthermore, the decision is contrary to the rights of the            which a medium-sized undertaking such as the applicant
 defence of the applicant since it was adopted without the             could not possibly fulfil. The Commission decided to sell
 applicant having been heard beforehand.                               105 986 276 kg, divided into 11 consignments. Each of
 Thirdly, contrary to Article 6 of Regulation (EEC)                    those consignments comprised quantities of tobacco of a
 No 2950/83 , the Commission did not give a hearing to the             specified variety which were held by the intervention
 Portuguese State before taking the disputed decision.                 agencies of the various Member States of the Community
                                                                       concerned . That consolidation made it virtually impossible
 Finally, the applicant alleges that there has been an                 for small and medium-sized undertakings to have access to
 infringement of the applicable Community rules as well as of          the tobacco in question, in view of the considerable volumes
 ---pagebreak--- 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,