CELEX: C2001/134/58
Language: en
Date: 2001-05-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-46/01: Action brought on 1 March 2001 by Alessandrini Srl and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

5.5.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 134/27
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision dated 14 November
      2000;                                                              —     annul the decision of the Commission, notified by letter
                                                                               of 8 December 2000 AGR No 030905, which arrived on
—     order the Commission to compensate the applicants for                    21 December 2000, signed by Director-General for
      the loss of earnings, pension, benefits and privileges                   Agriculture J.M. Silva Rodrı́guez, pursuant to Articles 230
      occasioned to them by breaches of Community law;                         and 231 of the EC Treaty;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     and/or order the Commission to pay compensation under
                                                                               Article 235 and the second paragraph of Article 288 of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                the EC Treaty;
The action is brought against a decision of the Join European
Torus (JET) Appointing Authority declining a request for                 —     in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.
compensation made by the applicants for losses resulting from
the Commission’s method of engaging them to work on the
JET project without recruiting them to temporary Commission
posts.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants claim that, in so doing, the Commission:
—     was in breach of the fundamental principle of non-
      discrimination in that in several respects the applicants          The applicant companies have for many years marketed third-
      were materially disadvantaged, to a significant extent,            country bananas. In 2000, like 1999, they were allocated a
      compared to those in temporary Commission posts; and               reference quantity established by reference to the average
                                                                         quantity of bananas imported from third countries in the
                                                                         three-year period 1994/1995/1996, and so they regularly
—     was in breach of, or alternatively ultra vires, the Statutes
                                                                         submitted, during 2000, applications for quarterly licences to
      governing the JET Project, prior to the amendment of the
                                                                         import bananas from third countries. For the fourth quarter of
      Statutes which took effect on 21 October 1998; in so
                                                                         2000, the applicants submitted applications for import licences
      far as the said amendment purported to preclude the
                                                                         in respect of the quantities left over from the yearly quantity
      Commission from recruiting the applicants to temporary
                                                                         allocated to them, indicating as origins for the product they
      posts, the amendment was to the extent unlawful and
                                                                         sought to import one or more third countries.
      invalid.
                                                                         Under Article 18 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98
                                                                         of 28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the
                                                                         implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93
                                                                         regarding imports of bananas into the Community (1), the
                                                                         applicants could have submitted applications for licences for
Action brought on 1 March 2001 by Alessandrini Srl                       the fourth quarter of 2000, but only in respect of the
and Others against the Commission of the European                        traditional ACP countries, for which there were still
                          Communities                                    329 787,675 tonnes, the other sources having by now been
                                                                         completely exhausted. Since in 1999 they had requested and
                                                                         obtained import licences for ACP countries up to their
                         (Case T-46/01)                                  reference quantity, but had not been able to use them because
                                                                         it had been impossible to find bananas from those origins in
                        (2001/C 134/58)                                  2000, they renounced their use of the licence in order not to
                                                                         risk losing the security lodged, as had happened the previous
                                                                         year.
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                The applicants therefore requested the Commission to issue
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               them import licences in respect of third-country bananas for a
European Communities on 1 March 2001 by Alessandrini Srl                 reduced amount, even if the quota was exhausted, or to
and others, represented by Wilma Viscardini Donà and Gabrie-             compensate them for the losses suffered as a result of their not
le Donà, of the Padua Bar, with an address for service in                being able to use up the whole of their respective reference
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, rue Mathias                 quantities. The defendant’s refusal in this regard is at the heart
Hardt.                                                                   of the present proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 134/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.5.2001
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied          The applicant submits that the Commission justifies that
on in Case T-93/00 Alessandrini and Others v Commission (2).             decision by alleging that the Paraguayan authorities have
                                                                         expressed reservations about him but that it fails to mention
                                                                         the factual and legal matters of which the applicant should be
                                                                         aware in order, if necessary, to be able to defend his own
(1) OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32.                                                professional conduct.
(2) OJ 2000 C 176, p. 25.
                                                                         The applicant considers that the decision at issue infringes
                                                                         Article 7 of the Staff Regulations since it is contrary to the
                                                                         interest of the service. In his view, the interest of the service
                                                                         specifically requires him to remain in his current post and
                                                                         continue the complex work which has been assigned to him
                                                                         and of which he has already gained sound experience.
                                                                         The applicant further submits that the decision is vitiated by a
Action brought on 6 March 2001 by Juergen Schaefer                       complete failure to state the grounds and has been adopted
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     without the Commission at any time taking account of the
                                                                         views of the party concerned, contrary to the requirements of
                                                                         case-law.
                          (Case T-52/01)
                        (2001/C 134/59)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         Action brought on 6 March 2001 by Poste Italiane S.p.A.
                                                                             against Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 March 2001 by Juergen Schaefer,                                         (Case T-53/01)
represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia, lawyer.
                                                                                                 (2001/C 134/60)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 12 February 2001
      relating to the applicant’s transfer back from Montevideo          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      (Uruguay) to Brussels;                                             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 6 March 2001 by Poste Italiane
                                                                         S.p.A., represented by Gian Michele Roberti, Petrus Mathijsen,
—     annul, if appropriate, the Commission’s note of 30 No-             Alessandra Perrazzelli, Elisabetta Rubini and Andrea Sandulli,
      vember 2000 informing the applicant of the decision to             avvocati.
      transfer him back from Montevideo (Uruguay) to Brussels;
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the immediate suspension and, if appropriate, the
      subsequent annulment of any procedure initiated with a             —     annul the contested decision
      view to filling the vacancy arising from the order
      transferring the applicant;                                        —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     order, if appropriate, the annulment of the corresponding
      appointment of an official to fill the post;                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         By this action, Poste Italiane SpA is seeking the annulment of
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         the decision of the Commission of 21 December 2000,
                                                                         adopted on the basis of Article 86(3) of the Treaty, in relation
                                                                         to the provision of certain new postal services with a
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          guaranteed day- or time-certain delivery. That decision declares
                                                                         incompatible with Article 4(4) of the Treaty Legislative Decree
                                                                         No 261/99 of 22 July 1999 implementing Directive 97/67/EC
The applicant, who is based in the European Commission’s                 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December
Delegation in Montevideo (Uruguay), was notified of a decision           1997 on common rules for the development of the internal
dated 12 February 2001 posting him back to Brussels with                 market of Community postal services and the improvement of
effect from 12 March 2001.                                               quality of service.(1);