CELEX: C1997/318/32
Language: en
Date: 1997-10-18 00:00:00
Title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 July 1997 in Case T-573/93 (129): Manuel Francisco Caballero Montoya v. Commission of the European Communities (Judgments - Interpretation)

18 . 10 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 318/15
(Agents: Dimitrios Gouloussis and Blanca Vila Costa ) —                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
application pursuant to Article 178 of the EC Treaty for                                          of 23 July 1997
compensation for the damage alleged to have been
suffered by the applicant as a result of the delay in                  in Case T-85/96: Francis Alan Clarke v. European Centre
collection by the carrier designated by the Commission of                for the Development of Vocational Training ( Cedefop ) (')
the olive oil made available by the applicant under a                                 (Case not proceeding to judgment)
tendering procedure for the free supply thereof to the
people of Georgia and Armenia — the Court of First                                                  ( 97IC 318/31 )
Instance ( Third Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
President, C. P. Briet and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung,                                (Language of the case: German)
Registrar, made an order on 18 July 1997, the operative
part of which is as follows:
                                                                       In Case T-85/96: Francis Alan Clarke, an official of the
                                                                       European Centre for the Development of Vocational
 1 . The application is dismissed as clearly inadmissible.             Training ( Cedefop ), resident at Eischen ( Luxembourg),
                                                                       represented by Frank Montag, of the Cologne and Brussels
2 . The applicant shall hear the costs.                                Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, against the
                                                                       European Centre for the Development of Vocational
(') OJ C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                       Training ( Cedefop ) ( Agent: Bertrand Wagenbaur) —
                                                                       application for the annulment of 1 . the decision of 5 April
                                                                        1996, as amended by the decision of 22 April 1996 and
                                                                       2 . the decision of 21 May 1996, whereby the defendant
                                                                       rejected an application for the extension of the applicant's
                                                                       secondment to the Statistical Office of the European
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Communities in Luxembourg and ordered his posting to
                                                                       Thessaloniki — the Court of First Instance             ( Fifth
                           of 23 July 1997
                                                                       Chamber), composed of R. Garcia-Valdecasas, President,
       in Case T-24/96: U v. European Centre for the                   J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
      Development of Vocational Training ( Cedefop ) (')               an order on 23 July 1997, the operative part of which is
                                                                       as follows :
              (Case not proceeding to judgment)
                            ( 97/C 318/30 )
                                                                       1 . There is no need for the action to proceed to
                                                                            judgment.
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       2. The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs and
In Case T-24/96 : U, an official of the European Centre for                 those incurred by the defendant in the interlocutory
the Development of Vocational Training ( Cedefop ),                         proceedings and these proceedings.
residing in Berlin, represented by Frank Montag,
Rechtsanwalt, Cologne and Brussels, with an address for                (') OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
31 Grand-Rue, v. European Centre for the Development
of Vocational Training ( Cedefop) ( Agent: Bertrand
Wagenbaur) — application for annulment of Cedefop's
decision of 8 February 1996 rejecting a request for an
extension of the applicant's secondment to the office of
the Commission of the European Communities in Berlin                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
and ordering his posting to Thessaloniki — the Court of                                           of 24 July 1997
First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: R. Garcfa­
Valdecasas, President; J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;                 in Case T-573/93 ( 129): Manuel Francisco Caballero
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 23 July 1997, the                 Montoya v. Commission of the European Communities (')
operative part of which is as follows :                                                 (Judgments — Interpretation)
                                                                                                   ( 97IC 318/32 )
I. There is no need to give a decision on the application.
                                                                                       (Language of the case: Spanish)
2 . The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs and to
     pay the costs incurred by the defendant in the
     proceedings for the interim relief and in the present             In Case T-573/93 ( 129 ): Manuel Francisco Caballero
     proceedings.                                                      Montoya, an official of the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Juan Ramon Iturriagagoitia
                                                                       Bassas, of the Madrid Bar, against Commission of the
H OJ C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
                                                                       European Communities ( Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira
                                                                       and Maria Isabel Jimenez Rojas ) — application for
                                                                       interpretation of the judgment of the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- C 318/ 16               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  18 . 10 . 97
Instance of 19 June 1996 in Case T-573/93 Caballero                              — the sum of Bfrs 34 654 629 subject to increase
Montoya v. Commission [ 1996] ECR-SC 11-909 — the                                   or adjustment in the course of the proceedings,
Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed
of C. W. Bellamy, President, A. Kalogeropoulos and                               — the sum of Bfrs 2 500 000 by way of
A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                            compensation for the loss of preferential rates
24 July 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:                            of interest on building loans,
1 . The application for interpretation is dismissed as                           — Bfrs 1 000 000 by way of compensation for the
     inadmissible.                                                                  injury to his professional reputation,
2 . Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.                       — order the EIB to pay the sum of Bfrs 300 000 to the
                                                                            applicant in his capacity as legal guardian of the
(') OJ C 27, 28 . 1 . 1994 .                                                person and property of his child who is a minor,
                                                                        — order the EIB to bear all costs .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 29 April 1997 by Michel Hautem
            against the European Investment Bank
                          ( Case T-140/97)
                                                                        The EIB alleges in the contested decision that the
                             ( 97/C 318/33 )                            applicant, who has been employed as a messenger since
                                                                        16 December 1994, founded a company together with one
                                                                        of his colleagues from the EIB ( Mr Yasse (')); that,
                 (Language of the case: French)                         without informing the EIB, he engaged in commercial
                                                                        activities outside the EIB on behalf of that company and
                                                                        used EIB property; and that he failed to declare his wife's
An action against the European Investment Bank was                      professional involvement with the company. The applicant
 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European             was therefore dismissed in accordance with Article 39,
 Communities on 29 April 1997 by Michel Hautem,                         fourth paragraph, of the EIB Staff Regulations .
residing in Schouweiler ( Luxembourg ), represented by
 Pascale Delvaux de Fenffe and Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten,
 of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                        The applicant alleges, first, infringement of Article 40 of
                                                                        the EIB Staff Regulations, of general principles common to
                                                                        the laws of the Member States and, in particular, of the
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                            right to a fair hearing.
— annul the decision taken on 31 January 1997 by the
     European Investment Bank ( EIB ),                                  The applicant's second plea is that the EIB committed an
                                                                        error of fact and of assessment inasmuch as the contested
                                                                        decision and the deliberations preceding it assume the
 — as a consequence, order the applicant to be reinstated               truth of the facts contested or place a manifestly erroneous
     in his duties,                                                     construction on the facts, inconsistent with their
                                                                        substance .
 — order the EIB to pay the applicant:
                                                                        The third plea alleges breach of the formal requirements,
     — upon his reinstatement, the sum of Bfrs 2 671 632                procedures and powers laid down by Article 40 of the
         — a provisional amount subject to increase in the              Staff Regulations in respect of the Joint Committee .
         course of the proceedings — representing salary
         arrears, together with Bfrs 1 000 000 by way of
         compensation for material and non-material                     Fourthly, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of
         damage;                                                        proportionality and/or of the protection of legitimate
                                                                        expectations .
     — should his reinstatement prove impossible:
         — the sum of Bfrs 1 393 616 by way of ordinary                 Lastly, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of
             compensatory settlement for lawful dismissal,              proportionality and of the general duty of impartiality,