CELEX: C1997/357/55
Language: en
Date: 1997-11-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 5 August 1997 by New Europe Consulting Ltd and M. P. Brown against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-231/97)

C 357/28                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                22 . 11 . 97
Manseau, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in              Ms Jouhki the opportunity to take part in open
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10                      competition COM/B/973 .
Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Hendrik van Lier) — application for
annulment of the Commission decision, notified to the                  Since Ms Jouhki satisfied the requirements in the notice of
applicant by letter dated 20 January 1997, not to proceed              competition for taking part in the competition, and since
with the complaint lodged by the applicant against the                 her taking part was nevertheless refused with no
Belgian National Railway Company ( SNCB ) for failing to               substantial grounds, the selection board's refusal is
comply with Community law in awarding a contract for                   erroneous as being unfounded. The decision made in
the supply of concrete sleepers for use on high-speed train            response to Ms Jouhki's demand for her application to be
lines — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),                 reconsidered by the selection board is likewise erroneous,
                                                                       inasmuch as the earlier erroneous decision was not
composed of A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M.                   corrected .
Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an
order on 29 September 1997, the operative part of which
is as follows :                                                        The time-limit under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations
                                                                       for replying to Ms Jouhki's complaint expired on 17 April
1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                      1997 .
2 . There is no need to rule on the application for leave to           Ms Jouhki 's complaint was not responded to within the
     intervene .
                                                                       time-limit. The EU administration informed her, however,
                                                                       that a reply to her complaint was still being prepared and
3 . The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                         that the complaint would be dealt with on 17 July 1997,
                                                                       that is, the same day on which the time-limit for an
(') OJ C 166 , 31 . 5 . 1997.                                          application by Ms Jouhki to the Court of First Instance
                                                                       expired.
                                                                       On the above grounds, Ms Jouhki has an interest in
                                                                       bringing proceedings, in that her complaint was rejected
                                                                       or that it was not decided by 17 July 1997 at the latest.
Action brought on 14 July 1997 by Sari Kristiina Jouhki
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-215/97)
                            ( 97/C 357/54 )
                 (Language of the case: Finnish)                       Action brought on 5 August 1997 by New Europe
                                                                       Consulting Ltd and M. P. Brown against the Commission
An action against the Commission of the European                                      of the European Communities
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                            ( Case T-231/97)
Instance of the European Communities on 14 July 1997
by Sari Kristiina Jouhki, of Pyhajarvi, Finland, represented                                   ( 97/C 357/55 )
by Harri Ojala, lawyer, of Oulu .
                                                                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
— declare that she was qualified and hence entitled to                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
     take part in open competition COM/B/973 and to be                 Instance of the European Communities on 5 August 1997
     accepted for the post advertised as vacant,                       by New Europe Consulting Ltd and M. P. Brown, of
                                                                       Dublin, represented by A. and B. De Roeck, of the
— declare the competition referred to in point 1 above                 Antwerp Bar.
     null and void and set a new time-limit for taking part
     in the competition, and
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the European Community to reimburse her costs
     in full together with interest for late payment in                — declare the claims of both applicants admissible and
     accordance with Paragraph 4 ( 3 ) of the Finnish                      well-founded,
     Korkolaki ( Law on interest) to run from one month
     from the date of judgment.
                                                                       — in that regard, order the defendant, the European
                                                                           Commission, to pay             compensation totalling
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        ECU 1 400 000, together with compensatory interest
                                                                           thereon from the date of the event giving rise to the
The selection board appointed by Directorate-General IX                    damage, namely 12 April 1995 , and legal interest from
of the Commission ( Personnel and Administration) refused                  the date of the judgment to be delivered in the case,
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 11 . 97          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 357/29
— at the same time, order the defendant to publish a                  Instance of the European Communities on 21 August
     mandatory written correction regarding the good                  1997 by Stork Amsterdam BV, established in Amsterdam
     name and reputation of the first applicant by means of           ( Netherlands ), represented by A. J. Braakman, of the
     a circular letter to be sent to all responsible persons          Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
     concerned within PHARE management units and the                  at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 1 1 Rue Goethe.
     Commission in east and central Europe, setting out the
     result of the judgment to be delivered,
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
— at the same time, order the defendant to pay all the
     costs .                                                          — declare Stork's application admissible, at the same
                                                                          time acknowledging its entitlement to amplify and
                                                                          clarify the contents thereof,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      — annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1997,
The first applicant is a company engaged in carrying out
assignments in the context of the European Commission's
PHARE/TACIS programme . The second applicant is the                   — order the Commission to pay the costs.
manager of the said company.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
On account of an alleged non-payment, the applicant
company was placed on the black list by a responsible
member of the Commission's staff. As a result, its income             The applicant contests the Commission's decision ( IV/F-1/
was reduced to zero. It was not until a year later that the           33.302 ) relating to its complaint against Serac SA
Commission       admitted     its mistake  and    that  all EU        concerning infringement of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC
delegations were informed that the applicant was no                   Treaty.
longer to be excluded. However, it very soon became
apparent that the rectification made by the Commission
was no more than a purely formal concession which was                 Stork and Serac each construct a machine which links up
not taken into account on a commercial level by the                   with the other party's machine to form a complete
different EU delegations. In fact, the Commission                     production line. By agreement between them, they have
continues to base its position on the alleged financial               undertaken not to develop or sell any machines which
unreliability of the applicant, which has never again been            may compete with the other party's machine. They have
officially invited to apply for selection for a PHARE                 further undertaken not to sell their own machine without
project.                                                              that of the other party.
The applicants claim compensation pursuant to the second              Upon being confronted, in 1989, with the anti-competitive
paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, concerning                 effects of that agreement, the applicant informed Serac
non-contractual liability.                                            that the agreement in question was contrary to the rules in
                                                                      the EC Treaty prohibiting restraints of trade, and that it
                                                                      was thus no longer bound by that agreement. At the same
They further complain of breaches of the principle of                 time, the applicant submitted a complaint to the
proportionality, of the right to a fair hearing, of the duty          Commission. In 1990 Serac notified the agreement to the
to act with due care, of the principle that due weight is to          Commission .
be given to matters and of the principle of the protection
of legitimate expectations.
                                                                      In its response, the Commission suggested to the parties
                                                                      that the anti-competitive clauses be deleted, alternatively
                                                                      that the parties apply to the national courts.
                                                                      In 1996 the Commission re-opened the procedure, and in
Action brought on 21 August 1997 by Stork Amsterdam                   1997 it adopted the contested decision and rejected
BV against the Commission of the European Communities                 Stork 's claim .
                        ( Case T-241 /97 )
                          ( 97/C 357/56 )                             By its application, the applicant contests the Commission's
                                                                      finding that the agreement contributes to improving
                                                                      production ( Article- 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty) and, further,
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                        that it has only insignificant economic effects on the
                                                                      relevant market .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First