CELEX: C2003/171/15
Language: en
Date: 2003-07-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-187/03 P: Appeal brought on 25 April 2003 by Zisis Drouvis against the judgment delivered on 26 February 2003 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-184/00 between Zisis Drouvis and the Commission, supported by the Council

C 171/10               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         19.7.2003
represented by Vasilios Kontolaimos, State Legal Adviser, and             (d)   The Commission exceeded the limits of its discretion and
Stiliani Kharitaki, Member of the State Legal Service, with an                  infringed the principle of proportionality since it imposed
address for service in Luxembourg at the Greek Embassy, 27                      such a high correction rate on all the islands of the
rue Marie-Adélaïde.                                                             Aegean, ignoring the limited risk of loss for the Fund, the
                                                                                fact that the check was being carried out for the first time,
                                                                                the fact that the Greek authorities complied immediately
                                                                                with the recommendations of its staff, and the magnitude
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     of the consequences — financial and environmental —
                                                                                which are inversely proportional to the population of
                                                                                each island and may be catastrophic for the smaller
annul, or otherwise amend, Commission Decision C(2003)                          islands (given that preservation of their olive groves and
500 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure                      their survival are dependent upon the grant of aid).
incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of
the EAGGF, in respect of the chapter thereof which concerns
financial corrections to the detriment of the Hellenic Republic.
Otherwise, and entirely in the alternative, the correction
imposed must be restricted: (a) solely to the area of the island
of Lesvos or in the alternative of the island of Rhodes; (b) to
expenditure incurred up until 16 February 2001 at the latest;
and (c) to a maximum rate of 2 %.
                                                                          Appeal brought on 25 April 2003 by Zisis Drouvis against
                                                                          the judgment delivered on 26 February 2003 by the
                                                                          Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities in Case T-184/00 between Zisis
                                                                           Drouvis and the Commission, supported by the Council
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                  (Case C-187/03 P)
The contested decision adopted by the Commission should be
annulled for the following reasons.                                                                (2003/C 171/15)
(a)   It misinterpreted and misapplied Article 11 of Regulation
      No 2019/93, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation
      No 2837/93, Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70 as              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 February
      amended by Regulation No 1287/98, and Article 7(4) of               2003 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
      Regulation No 1258/99.                                              the European Communities in Case T-184/00 between Zisis
                                                                          Drouvis and the Commission, supported by the Council as
                                                                          intervener, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
(b)   In the alternative — assuming that the Commission’s                 European Communities on 25 April 2003 by Zisis Drouvis,
      interpretation of the provisions of Regulations No 2019/            represented by Ioannis Stamouolis, of the Athens Bar.
      93 and No 2837/93 is correct — given the manifest lack
      of clarity of the regulations and in accordance with
      the guidelines, any misapplication of the Community                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
      provisions connected with that interpretation that may
      have occurred should not be regarded as proving the                 —     find the appeal lawful and well founded;
      existence of all the imputed deficiencies of the system or
      be taken into account when forming the final decision
                                                                          —     set aside the judgment under appeal delivered by the
      regarding the need for imposition of a general correction
                                                                                Court of First Instance on 26 February 2003 in Case
      and indeed of such a high rate.
                                                                                T-184/00;
(c)   The Commission misappraised the facts established in                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      the course of the check and found without sufficient
      reasoning that there were fundamental deficiencies of
      a general nature entailing a particularly high risk of
      Community resources being lost, having first extrapolated           Grounds of appeal
      the findings (which related to the two islands which were
      checked) in an impermissible manner so as to cover all
      the islands of the Aegean. It thereby ignored the special           First ground:                 Erroneous interpretation and
      features which each island displays and vary in accordance                                        application of Article 6(2) ΕU,
      with location, size, population, land morphology, poten-                                          Article 14 of the European Con-
      tial for production, infrastructure and so forth — special                                        vention on Human Rights and
      features which are acknowledged by the very regulations                                           Article 1 of the First Protocol to
      that are applicable in respect of the islands of the Aegean.                                      that Convention.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.7.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 171/11
Second ground:                 Erroneous interpretation and                           by exposing him to asbestos, a carcinogenic substan-
                               application of Articles 42 EC and                      ce which causes incurable serious illnesses,
                               43 EC.
                                                                                —     deliberately attempted against the appellant’s safety
                                                                                      at work, by seriously neglecting safety, assessed at
                                                                                      EUR 3 500 000 (ITL 7 000 000 000), by analogy
                                                                                      with the amounts ordered in respect of each of the
                                                                                      victims (totalling some EUR 500 000 or
                                                                                      ITL 1 000 000 000) in the judgment in Case 4840/
Appeal brought on 3 May 2003 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni                                    96 of 5 July 1996 delivered by the Pretura Circondar-
against the judgment delivered on 26 February 2003 by                                 iale di Torino (District Magistrate’s Court, Turin) and
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                                   the compensation ordered for each of the victims of
the European Communities in Case T-164/01 between                                     the ‘Cermis’ cable car disaster, namely
Arnaldo Lucaccioni and the Commission of the European                                 ITL 4 000 000 000.
                           Communities
                                                                          3.    order the defendant to pay the costs incurred at first
                        (Case C-196/03 P)                                       instance and as a result of the appeal.
                         (2003/C 171/16)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 February
2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-164/01 between Arnaldo                 1.     The Court of First Instance found that the applicant had
Lucaccioni and the Commission of the European Communities                 already submitted on 15 May 1994 a request relating to non-
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                   material damage suffered prior to the onset of the occupational
Communities on 3 May 2003 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni, rep-                     disease. That request was rejected by the appointing authority
resented by Mauro Cimino, with an address for service in                  by decision of 22 September 1994, against which the applicant
Fermo (AP) (Italy).                                                       brought a complaint on 15 December 1994, in which he no
                                                                          longer mentioned the alleged damage, in particular non-
                                                                          material damage, suffered prior to the onset of the occupational
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          disease; neither did he challenge before the Court of First
                                                                          Instance (Case T-165/95) the rejection of the complaint by
1.   uphold the appeal and, consequently, the application at              the Commission refusing to acknowledge entitlement to
     first instance;                                                      compensation for non-material damage suffered prior to the
                                                                          onset of the occupational disease. Essentially, the applicant
2.   order compensation for biological and non-material                   failed to bring an action within the time-limit for doing so
     damage caused by the defendant between 1967 and                      against the decision of the Commission of 22 September 1994
     1990, under the ordinary law, the Charter of Fundament               refusing to pay compensation for the damage.
     Rights of the European Union and the European Conven-
     tion on Human Rights, irrespective of (or under)
     Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, as a result of the
                                                                          According to the appellant, the reasoning of the Court of First
     inexcusable fault of the institution, which thus incurs
                                                                          Instance is not satisfactory in that it may not be stated with
     liability, inasmuch as it:
                                                                          certainty that the request of 15 May 1994 included a request
                                                                          for compensation for non-material damage suffered prior to
     —      infringed the appellant’s human dignity,                      the onset of the occupational disease. That interpretation is
                                                                          arguable, since what is involved is a letter making a claim and
     —      infringed the appellant’s right to privacy,                   a generic request for compensation following the onset of the
                                                                          illness.
     —      caused continuous and culpable bodily harm to the
            appellant, in that it obliged him to work, giving
            untrue reassurances, in an environment contamin-              2.     The appellant also disputes that the fact that the Court
            ated by asbestos, knowing full well that asbestos is          of First Instance declared inadmissible the request for compen-
            harmful even for persons not at risk,                         sation for biological damage on the ground that a request
                                                                          seeking compensation for damage must contain information
     —      deliberately attempted to harm the appellant, at the          to make it possible to identify the conduct of the institution
            risk of killing him, which is mentioned only to               about which the appellant is complaining and the reasons for
            support the allegation of harm                                which he takes the view that there is a causal link between the
                                                                          conduct and the damage he alleges to have suffered. According
     —      deliberately tortured the appellant over many years           to the appellant, the damage to his health caused by exposure