CELEX: C2003/007/45
Language: en
Date: 2003-01-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-332/02: Action brought on 30 October 2002 by Nordspedizionieri Danielis Livio & Co., a partnership between Livio Danielis and Domenico D'Alessandro, in liquidation, against Commission of the European Communities

C 7/22                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11.1.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Justice         —     annul the decision of 30 January 2002 of the Director
      to award the applicant 0.58 promotion points in respect                   General of Directorate General A of the Council to
      of 1998 and to award only one promotion point per year                    terminate the procedure under Article 29(1)(a) of the
      in respect of 1999 and 2000;                                              Staff Regulations to fill the post of Language Adviser in
                                                                                the English and Irish Language Division and to proceed
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     to the next stage, namely the organisation of an internal
                                                                                competition under Article 29(1)(b);
                                                                          —     order the Council to pay to the applicant the sum of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 EUR 10 000 000 by way of compensation for material
                                                                                and non-material damage;
The applicant is challenging the decision of the appointing
authority to award her 0.58 promotion points in respect of                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
1998 and to award her only one promotion point per year in
respect of 1999 and 2000.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that no staff report has been drawn up
for her throughout the period in which she worked for the
defendant as a member of the temporary staff, that is to say              By judgment of 14 June 2001 in Case T-230/99, the Court
from 1 June to 30 November 1998. Nor was any report                       of First Instance annulled the decisions of the Council of
drawn up in her respect during her probation period (from                 15 December 1998 appointing Ms K to the post of language
1 December 1998 to 31 August 1999). Consequently, only                    adviser in the English Language Division and rejecting the
the analytical assessments in the staff report for the period             candidature of the applicant for the said post. The Council
from 1 September 1999 to 31 December 2000 were taken                      appealed that judgment. The appeal was held manifestly
into consideration, which prevented the appointing authority              inadmissible by order of the Court of Justice of
from taking account of the applicant’s ‘merits’ as set out in the         13 December 2001.
general assessment and in the reporting officer’s observations.
                                                                          The applicant claims that, in consequence of that judgment,
In support of her claims, the applicant alleges:                          the Council was obliged to re-examine his application for the
                                                                          post in question. By failing to carry out such re-examination,
—     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;                the Council has, in the applicant’s view, infringed Article 233
                                                                          of the EC Treaty. The applicant further alleges manifest error
—     infringement of paragraph 5 of the ‘Instructions relatives          of assessment and misuse of powers.
      aux promotions’ appended to the decision of the Court
      of 18 October 2000;
—     manifest error of assessment in the present case.
                                                                          Action brought on 30 October 2002 by Nordspedizionieri
                                                                          Danielis Livio & Co., a partnership between Livio Danielis
                                                                          and Domenico D’Alessandro, in liquidation, against Com-
                                                                                      mission of the European Communities
Action brought on 18 October 2002 by Hans Mc Auley
            against Council of the European Union
                                                                                                  (Case T-332/02)
                        (Case T-324/02)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 7/45)
                         (2003/C 7/44)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Council of the European Union was                   ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                European Communities on 30 October 2002 by Nordspedi-
Communities on 18 October 2002 by Hans Mc Auley, residing                 zionieri Danielis Livio & Co., a partnership between Livio
in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by Albert Cool-                 Danielis and Domenico D’Alessandro, in liquidation, represent-
en, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, avocats.                         ed by Gregorio Leone, lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- 11.1.2003              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 7/23
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             The applicants further request, in the alternative, the appli-
                                                                        cation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2144/
—     annul the decision of the Commission REM 14/01 of                 87 of 13 July 1987 on customs debt (2), which precludes
      28 June 2002, notified on 2 September 2002, finding no            payment of customs duty in respect of those goods which
      ground for remission of import duties in respect of               have been confiscated.
      imported goods valued at EUR 256 983,63;
                                                                        (1 ) OJ 1979 L 175, p. 1.
—     in the alternative, and subject to all manner of reser-           (2 ) OJ 1987 L 201, p. 15.
      vations, declare none the less, pursuant to Article 8(19)(b)
      of Regulation EEC No 2144/87, that in the present case a
      remission of import duties is due to the applicants in
      respect of the 8 010 kilograms confiscated from all the
      accused in the criminal proceedings;
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs.
                                                                        Action brought on 6 November 2002 by Susan Christen-
                                                                           sen against Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   (Case T-336/02)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 7/46)
The applicants in the present case are contesting the defend-
ant’s decision finding that there is no ground for the remission
of import duties amounting to EUR 256 983 requested by the                                  (Language of the case: French)
Italian Republic on 4 June 2001 (DOSSIER REM 14/01,
notified in EEC C(2002) 2384 final).
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicants were asked to pay customs duty on two                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
consignments of cigarettes amounting to more than LIT                   European Communities on 6 November 2002 by Susan
2.5 billion, as they then were, dating from as far back as 1992.        Christensen, residing in Ispra (Italy), represented by Georges
They challenged the order for payment before the Italian                Vandersanden and Laure Levi, avocats.
courts and sought a remission from the Commission, which
refused it.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The present application has been brought under Article 13 of            —     annul the decision of the Selection Board for Competition
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the                     COM/R/A/2000 of 3 December 2001 refusing to include
repayment or remission of import or export duties (1). The                    the applicant on the reserve list on the ground that she
applicants claim that they could not be required to pay                       failed to obtain, during the oral tests, the minimum
customs duty in that there are in the present case ‘special                   number of points to be included and, in so far as
situations’ such as to preclude such a requirement of payment,                necessary, the decision of the authority empowered to
since they had placed legitimate reliance on commercial and                   conclude contracts of employment (AECE) of 23 July
transport documents submitted to them when the goods were                     2002 rejecting the applicant’s complaint, notified on
declared at customs which gave to understand that the goods                   30 July 2002;
were packaging.
                                                                        —     annul all the operations and acts relating to the compe-
                                                                              tition subsequent to the irregularities contained in the
The special situation giving entitlement to remission arises                  decision of 3 December 2001 and, in particular, the
from the fact that the customs declarant has no way of being                  reserve list and the appointment decisions taken on the
able to check the content of the lorry crossing the border and                basis of that list;
furthermore that the documents appeared to be in order, while
the consignment cleared customs under the ‘conformity’
procedure by the customs authority.                                     —     order the defendant, in any event, to adopt any measure
                                                                              necessary to ensure that the applicant’s rights are restored;
Furthermore, in the present case, there was no ‘negligence’ or          —     otherwise, order the defendant to pay damages assessed
‘deception’, as required under Article 13, inasmuch as the                    at EUR 22 088,34, subject to increase;
applicants properly declared the goods, in accordance with the
commercial and transport documents.                                     —     order the defendant to pay the costs.