CELEX: C2003/112/88
Language: en
Date: 2003-05-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-106/03: Action brought on 14 March 2003 by Hans McAuley against the Council of the European Union

10.5.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 112/47
concerning the withdrawal of the contribution of the European              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted, in the form of a
global subsidy in support of the activities of an ‘Information             —     annul Ms Dionyssopoulou’s definitive staff report dated
centre for collaboration between undertakings and the pro-                       20 December 2002;
motion of investment’, by Commission Decision C(93) 256/4
of 16 February 1993 as part of the Community support
framework for Community structural operations in Sicily in                 —     order the Council to pay damages in the amount of
pursuance of Objective 1, and the recovery of amounts already                    EUR 8 000;
paid by the Commission by virtue of that contribution.
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:
—     Infringement of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC)
      No 4253/88 ( 1) of 19 December 1988, laying down                     Pleas in law and main arguments
      provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/
      88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different
      Structural Funds between themselves and with the oper-               The applicant in this case contests the assessments contained
      ations of the European Investment Bank and the other                 in her definitive staff report for the period from 1 July 1999
      existing financial instruments inasmuch as the CIS did               to 30 June 2001.
      not wilfully misuse the approved subsidy but was unable
      to supplement it through no fault of its own, the fault
      being exclusively that of the Sicilian regional adminis-             She alleges in that respect breach of the Guide to Staff Reports
      tration which delayed in drawing up the contract between             and a manifest error of assessment. These are apparent in
      the defendant and the CIS.                                           particular from the implied criticism that the applicant did not
                                                                           participate fully in all the tasks of the service on medical
—     Infringement of clause 14 of the abovementioned agree-               grounds.
      ment inasmuch as the Commission should have acknowl-
      edged the reimbursement of the expense incurred, par-
      ticularly in view of the fact that in the present case the
      intermediary was not able to carry out the planned
      activities for unforeseeable reasons beyond its control.
The applicant also pleads breach of the principles of force
majeure, proportionality and legitimate expectations and, in
the present case, misuse of powers.                                        Action brought on 14 March 2003 by Hans McAuley
                                                                                     against the Council of the European Union
( 1) OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1.
                                                                                                    (Case T-106/03)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 112/88)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 17 March 2003 by Triantafyllia
Dionyssopoulou against the Council of the European
                              Union
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
                          (Case T-105/03)                                  brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities on 14 March 2003 by Hans McAuley, residing
                                                                           in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by Sébastien
                          (2003/C 112/87)                                  Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis et Étienne Marchal,
                                                                           lawyers.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                 —     annul the decision finalising the applicant’s definitive staff
Communities on 17 March 2003 by Triantafyllia Dionysso-                          report for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001;
poulou, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by François
Renard, lawyer.                                                            —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 112/48                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                   10.5.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               assessor which were favorable to the applicant were
                                                                              removed.
The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of his
application.
—     Breach of the obligation as to circumspection, of the
      principles of proper administraion and sound manage-
      ment and of the principles of independence and impar-                     Removal from the register of Case T-100/99 (1)
      tiality. It is claimed that the contested staff report was
      drawn up by a head of unit whose appointment was                                          (2003/C 112/89)
      challenged by the applicant before the Court of First
      Instance. The applicant submits that in those circum-                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
      stances that assessor should have disqualified himself.
—     Breach of the obligation to state reasons, of rights of
      defence and of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations and            By order of 25 February 2003 the President of the Second
      manifest error of assessment. In this plea the applicant          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
      claims that the contested report was drawn up on the
      basis of statements by unidentified persons who did not           T-100/99: Campina Melkunie B.V. v Commission of the
      sign it, that the assessors did not consult the persons           European Communities.
      proposed by the applicant and that the second assessor
      gave no explanation as to why assessments by the first            (1 ) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.