CELEX: C1998/094/75
Language: en
Date: 1998-03-28 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 3 January 1998 by Carlo De Nicola against the European Investment Bank (Case T-7/98)

C 94/30              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.3.98
Instance on 24 December 1997 by SPRL NoeÈl Boone and                applicants were required, until the very eve of 1 January
Others, established in Belgium, represented by Pierre               1993, to carry on their activities in the same way, before
Cavenaile and Koenraad Tanghe, of the LieÁge Bar, with an           becoming subject to the entry into force of the new rules.
address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume.                                  Finally, by adopting Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92, the
                                                                    Council failed entirely to take account of the location or
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance               size of the undertakings.
should:
                                                                    (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92 of 17 December 1992
                                                                        on measures to adapt the profession of customs agent to the
Ð order the defendants jointly and severally to pay a                   internal market (OJ L 394, 31.12.1992, p. 1).
    provisional sum, subject to increase or reduction in the        (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3632/85 of 12 December 1985
    course of the proceedings, together with interest                   defining the conditions under which a person may be
    thereon at the rate of 8 % from 1 January 1993, the                 permitted to make a customs declaration (OJ L 350,
    date on which the damage actually occurred, until the               31.12.1992, p. 1).
    date of actual payment,
Ð order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the
    entirety of the costs.
                                                                    Action brought on 3 January 1998 by Carlo De Nicola
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                              against the European Investment Bank
                                                                                              (Case T-7/98)
The applicants, which are Belgian customs agents, seek
compensation for damage suffered as a result of                                                (98/C 94/75)
completion of the internal market: the Community
institutions failed to adopt effective transitional measures                         (Language of the case: Italian)
to enable customs agents to adjust progressively to the
new requirements. In the applicants' view, the only                 An action against the European Investment Bank was
reaction on the part of the Community institutions is               brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92,                   Communities on 3 January 1998 by Carlo De Nicola,
published on 31 December 1992 (1) Ð that is to say the              represented by Luigi Isola of the Rome Bar, and Fergus
day before the entry into force of the rules that are ruining       Randolph, of the Bar of England and Wales, with an
their businesses Ð which envisages measures that are                address for service in Luxembourg at Carlo De Nicola's
totally inappropriate to their legitimate expectations and          own address, 16 Rue du Kiem.
to those of the profession as a whole.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
In support of their claims, they allege breach of the
principle of the observance of acquired rights, the                 Ð annul the promotions communicated on 23 July 1997
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and               in so far as they do not contain the applicant's name
the principle of non-discrimination.                                     at point 1.1, annul the decision contained in letter
                                                                         RH/DIR/97-101 of 3 October 1997 and, finally, annul
They state in that connection that, in Regulation (EEC)                  all subsequent related acts, including the assessment
No 3632/85 (2), the Council recognised the existence and                 made of the applicant in respect of 1996 inasmuch as
legitimacy of the profession of customs agent, and no                    it does not propose his promotion to work in D,
indication, either implicit or explicit, has been given that
the position has changed. In their view, they were thereby          Ð order the defendant EIB to pay compensation for
recognised as enjoying a genuine right acquired before the               physical, non-material and material damage.
adoption of the Single European Act, that is to say at a
time when the envisaged extent of European construction
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
did not call for the abolition of intra-Community
frontiers.
                                                                    The applicant, an official of the European Investment
                                                                    Bank, contests the appointing authority's refusal to
As regards the protection of legitimate expectations, the           promote him from E to D in the context of the
applicants consider that when the economic impossibility            promotions decided upon on 23 July 1997.
of exercising a given profession is the result of measures of
secondary law, the legitimate expectations entertained by
economic operators regarding the conduct of the                     The applicant sets out a number of specific situations
Community institutions are frustrated. In their opinion,            within his department and goes on to put forward in
the infringement of their expectations is particularly              support of his claim the following pleas in law:
serious where, as in this case, the supervening
impossibility was severe and total. Moreover, the                   Ð abuse of powers, inasmuch as the Staff Regulations
infringement had particularly serious consequences in this               were infringed, and unequal treatment, inasmuch as
case since, under Regulation (EEC) No 3623/85, the                       the Director-General for Finance had implemented a
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 94/31
    new rule departing from the provisions of Article 23                termination of the contract and by its notification on
    of the Staff Regulations, according to which the                    the last possible date,
    development of each official's career is linked to the
    results achieved by the department to which he is
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
    assigned. This method would favour officials who
    carry out administrative duties over those in
    operational units which involve a high level of                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    professional risk. Moreover, in the present case, the
    evaluation of the applicant's work was always made
    by managers of whom he had always been critical,               The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    whereas sound management requires the absolute                 are the same as those raised in Case C-257/97 E-Quattro
    separation of assessors and assessed,                          v. Commission (1).
                                                                   (1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997, p. 9.
Ð distortion of the facts and misuse of powers. In the
    applicant's annual assessment for 1996 there are many
    positive statements about him. Nonetheless, the
    defendant blocked every possible career route within
    the Treasury Department. Thus the annual report was
    used systematically for purposes other than those for
    which it was intended,                                         Action brought on 9 January 1998 by Argon srl and
                                                                   Others against the Council of the European Union and the
Ð manifest illogicality and inconsistency of the rejection.                 Commission of the European Communities
    First, in 1996 he assumed direct responsibility for the                                (Case T-12/98)
    management of the cover portfolio and the Guarantee
    Fund, which belies the contested decision, and,                                         (98/C 94/77)
    secondly, since Article 23 of the defendant's Staff
    Regulations places no limits on promotions to D, if                            (Language of the case: Italian)
    the real obstacle to the promotion in question was that
    there were fewer opportunities in the unit dealing with
    obligations, it would have sufficed to transfer the            An action against the Council of the European Union and
    applicant to another operational unit in order to              the Commission of the European Communities was
    resolve the problem.                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities on 9 January 1998 by Argon srl, Berca srl,
                                                                   Bonaldi snc di Guidetti & Co., Camasped di Cassini
                                                                   Marco, Carioni Spedizioni Internazionali srl, Centro
                                                                   Servizi Doganali srl, Comimpex srl, EIR, Casa di
                                                                   spedizioni snc di Brassanelli Eligio & Co., Emmedue sas
                                                                   di Felisati & Co. in liquidazione, Errek sas, F.lli Colli srl,
Action brought on 16 July 1997 by SocietaÁ E-Quattro               F.lli Ramella srl, Greco Umberto di Umberto Greco snc,
  against the Commission of the European Communities               Lurasped di Luerti G. & C. sas in liquidazione, Monterisi
                        (Case T-10/98)                             Giuseppe & Co., Rossi Sergio & Co. snc, Servizi Doganali
                                                                   di Piras Giorgio & Co. snc, Spedizioni ST1 srl, Toccafondi
                         (98/C 94/76)                              Claudio Spedizioniere Doganale srl in liquidazione, Tre
                                                                   Esse snc di Torresani F.lli e Crescini Leandro, Unisped srl,
               (Language of the case: Italian)                     Vergani Spedizioni srl in liquidazione, represented by
                                                                   Gregorio Leone of the Milan Bar, and Mark Clough of the
                                                                   Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in
An action against the Commission of the European                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Rue.
Instance of the European Communities on 16 July 1997
by SocietaÁ E-Quattro, represented by Giuseppe
Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service        The applicants claim that the Court should:
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, Rue
Mathias Hardt.
                                                                   Ð declare the defendants liable, within the meaning of
                                                                        the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty, for
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the damage caused to the applicant companies by the
                                                                        repercussions on their activities as authorised customs
                                                                        agent as a result of the provisions adopted by the
Ð order the Commission to make good the damage
                                                                        Council when organising the free movement of goods
    suffered and being suffered by the applicant as a result
                                                                        within the single market from 1 January 1993 without
    of the persistent delay in paying the balance of the
                                                                        taking the measures necessary to protect the interests
    services set out in the unpaid invoice,
                                                                        of the applicants, as well as for the fact that the
                                                                        Commission has not proposed, nor has the Council
Ð order, further, the Commission to make good the                       adopted, the measures necessary for the legitimate
    damage caused to the company by the unjustified                     protection of the rights of the applicants,