CELEX: C1999/281/36
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-157/99: Action brought on 2 July 1999 by Helga Griesel against the Council of the European Union

C 281/18               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.10.1999
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 meeting of the Standing Veterinary Committee of 23 Feb-
                                                                            ruary 1999 that the Commission submitted the final report
— set aside the contested decision;                                         on the inspection visit to Kazakhstan, and moreover it
                                                                            does not appear from the minutes that the Commission
— order the defendant to pay the applicant DEM                              submitted to the Standing Veterinary Committee the
    9 519 974 .00, with interest at 8 % per annum from the                  specific proposal for the contested decision.
    date when the present action was brought;
— declare that the defendant is obliged to compensate the              The liquidated claim for damages essentially concerns an
    applicant for all further damage which may arise;                  advance payment for a delivery of 9 500 kg of caviar which is
                                                                       likely to be irrecoverable, and the loss of profit which could
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       have been earned on the processing and sale of that quantity.
                                                                       The final amount of damage cannot yet be completely
                                                                       calculated, however, and so the Community must be held to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        be liable in principle.
The applicant imports caviar mainly from Kazakhstan in large
units (as a rule 1.8 kg tins), packages it in small portions           (1) Commission Decision of 26 March 1999 amending Decision
and sells these on to its customers inside and outside the                 97/296/EC drawing up the list of third countries from which the
Community.                                                                 import of fishery products is authorised for human consumption
                                                                           (OJ No L 91 of 7.4.1999, p. 37).
                                                                       (2) Commission Decision of 28 January 1999 amending Decision
In accordance with Article 1 of in conjunction with the Annex              97/296/EC drawing up the list of third countries from which the
to the contested Commission decision (1), Kazakhstan was                   import of fishery products is authorised for human consumption
deleted from the list of third countries from which fishery                (OJ No L 44 of 18.2.1999, p. 61).
products may be imported into the Community, so that                   (3) Council Decision of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing
the previously authorised import of caviar was no longer                   up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country
permitted.                                                                 establishments from which Member States are authorised to
                                                                           import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live
                                                                           bivalve mulluscs (OJ No L 243 of 11.10.1995, p. 17).
In the period November/December 1998 three veterinary
inspectors instructed by the Commission carried out an
investigative mission for examining conditions in Kazakhstan
with respect to imports of horsemeat and of fist products
other than caviar. Although caviar was not even a subject
of investigation, the inspectors nevertheless proposed that
Kazakhstan should be deleted from the list of authorised
countries of import with respect also to imports of caviar. In
the fourth recital in the preamble to the contested decision the
Commission then indeed gave as reasons for the deletion of
Kazakhstan the serious deficiencies found during the inspec-           Action brought on 2 July 1999 by Helga Griesel against
tion visit.                                                                          the Council of the European Union
As a result of the contested decision, it was no longer possible                                (Case T-157/99)
for the applicant to import into the Community the fresh
caviar for which it had concluded a supply contract shortly
before the adoption of the contested decision, and it has                                       (1999/C 281/36)
thereby incurred substantial damage.
                                                                                           (Language of the case: French)
In the applicant’s view, the contested decision infringes
— the principle of sound administration, because it incor-             An action against the Council of the European Union was
    rectly assesses the facts on which it is based and draws           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    implausible conclusions from them, and                             Communities on 2 July 1999 by Helga Griesel, residing in
                                                                       Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre-Paul van
— the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations,          Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service at
    since the Commission, after the inspection visit to Kazakh-        the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
    stan by the veterinary inspectors, in Decision 99/136/EC (2)
    still left Kazakhstan on the list of authorised countries of
    import for caviar and then by the contested decision
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
    suddenly and without warning deleted Kazakhstan from
    the list, and also breaches
                                                                       — annul the defendant’s decision not to promote her to grade
— essential procedural requirements, since — in breach of                   C 4 in the 1998 promotions procedure;
    Decision 95/408/EC (3) on which the contested decision is
    based — it does not appear from the minutes of the                 — order the defendant to pay all of the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.10.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 281/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          — declare that the applicant has been suffering from total
                                                                             permanent invalidity, making it impossible for him to
                                                                             carry out the duties corresponding to a post in his career
The applicant entered the service of the General Secretariat of              bracket, from 23 September 1998, the date of his request
the Council as a grade C 5 official on 1 November 1995.                      that he be treated as suffering from invalidity, or such
During the 1998 promotions procedure, the list of officials                  other date as the Court may determine;
eligible for promotion and the number of posts to be filled by
way of promotion were published by Staff Notice No 140/98                — order that an expert medical opinion be sought in order to
on 5 November 1998. Amongst the 124 officials eligible for                   determine whether the applicant is suffering from total
promotion from grade C 5, the applicant was in 43rd place in                 invalidity;
order of seniority, out of all the grade C 5 officials having
the requisite seniority under the Staff Regulations. Upon                — make such ruling as to costs as may be appropriate.
completion of the work of the advisory committee on category
C promotions, a list of officials proposed for promotion to
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
grade C 4, containing 38 names was sent to the appointing
authority, which decided to act on it. The applicant’s name did
not appear on that list.                                                 By note dated 23 September 1998 the applicant submitted a
                                                                         request for the grant to him of an invalidity pension. In
                                                                         consequence of that request, the administration of the Court
In support of her application, the applicant pleads:                     of Auditors referred the matter to the Invalidity Committee,
                                                                         which concluded that the applicant was not suffering from
— infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and                any complaint which could be regarded as total permanent
     failure to provide statement of reasons;                            invalidity making it impossible for his to perform his duties.
                                                                         The appointing authority of the Court of Auditors, noting that
— infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;                   decision, rejected his request that he be retired on grounds of
— failure properly to carry out the promotions procedure;                invalidity.
— failure to observe the principle of equal treatment; and               In support of his application, the applicant maintains:
— manifest error of assessment.                                          — that his current state of health shows that the sick leave
                                                                             proposed by the Invalidity Committee has not brought
                                                                             about an improvement in his health;
                                                                         — that the various medical certificates obtained from several
                                                                             specialists show that the treatment received at the Mondorf
                                                                             health spa has had no palpable result, that no significant
                                                                             improvement is to be expected in the applicant’s physical
                                                                             condition and moreover, that, from an osteoarticular and
                                                                             spinal standpoint, the applicant needs beyond all doubt to
Action brought on 7 July 1999 by Bjarne Christiansen                         be retired from his duties on grounds of invalidity;
                 against the Court of Auditors
                                                                         — that the decision of the Invalidity Committee should be
                                                                             reviewed, having regard to a new medical certificate dated
                         (Case T-159/99)                                     10 May 1999 concluding that the treatment has not
                                                                             improved the applicant’s muscular condition.
                         (1999/C 281/37)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Court of Auditors was brought before               Action brought on 8 July 1999 by Gunnar Svantesson
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                 and Others against the Council of the European Union
7 July 1999 by Bjarne Christiansen, residing at Nittel (Ger-
many), represented by Alain Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar,                                       (Case T-160/99)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers,
51 Rue Albert 1er.                                                                               (1999/C 281/38)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                 (Language of the case: French)
— find that new factors have arisen since the Invalidity
     Committee adopted its decision on 30 October 1998;                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
— declare that the action brought by the applicant against               Communities on 8 July 1999 by Gunnar Svantesson, Monica
     the decision of the European Court of Auditors of 7 April           Hägg and Lena Hellsten, residing in Brussels, represented by
     1999, by which it rejected the complaint lodged against             Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège Bar (Belgium), with an address
     the decision adopted by the appointing authority of the             for service at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL 30 Rue de
     Court of Auditors on 26 November 1998, is well founded;             Cessange.