CELEX: C1998/378/37
Language: en
Date: 1998-12-05 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 30 September 1998 by Graça Oliveira against the European Parliament (Case T-157/98)

C 378/20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  5.12.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         in particular the definition of the market, the
                                                                    proportionality of the aid and the state of competition in
                                                                    the sector.
Ð annul the last sentence of Article 1 of the Commission
     decision of 10 June 1998 on State aid for CoopeÂrative
     d'exportation du livre francËais (CELF)';                      In addition, it alleges breach of the prohibition of
                                                                    discrimination in that the Commission authorised aid
                                                                    granted to one undertaking only and there was no
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                            objective justification for the different treatment thus
                                                                    afforded the other undertakings on the market.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the fourth
The applicant, the same as in Case T-49/93 SIDE v.                  subparagraph of Article 93(2) of the Treaty.
Commission (1), challenges the decision whereby the
Commission declared that State aid granted to                       (1) Judgment of 18 September 1995 in Case T-49/93 SIDE v.
CoopeÂrative d'exportation du livre francËais (CELF) was                Commission [1995] ECR II-2501.
compatible with the common market in accordance with
Article 92(3)(d) of the Treaty. In support of that assertion,
the Commission states in the decision that the aid in
question has a cultural purpose and does not affect
trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common
interest.                                                           Action brought on 30 September 1998 by GracËa Oliveira
                                                                                  against the European Parliament
The applicant points out in this connection that, by                                      (Case T-157/98)
judgment of 18 September 1995, cited above, the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities had annulled                                     (98/C 378/37)
a Commission decision concerning aid granted exclusively
to CELF for handling small orders, on the ground that the                          (Language of the case: French)
Commission had failed to comply with its obligation to
initiate the inter partes procedure provided for by
Article 93(2) of the Treaty.                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought
                                                                    before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                    Communities on 30 September 1998 by GracËa Oliveira,
In support of its claims, the applicant first of all alleges a      residing in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis
procedural defect, in that the Commission failed to                 and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an
undertake a thorough and impartial investigation of the             address for service in Luxembourg at the Offices of
complaint and the observations of all the persons                   Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
concerned. On that point, it claims that there was unequal
treatment in the conduct of the proceedings, inasmuch as
CELF was closely involved in that procedure and was thus            The applicant claims that the Court should:
able to put forward its point of view as to the
proportionality of the aid it received. Furthermore, in the         Ð annul the Parliament's decision not to promote the
light of the fact that one of the most important facts                   applicant to grade B 4 in the 1997 promotions
adduced by the applicant in its observations was precisely               procedure;
the rebuttal of the actual definition of a small order, it
seems contrary to the principle of impartiality that it was
in the end CELF alone that the Commission invited to                Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
supply it with information on this crucial point.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Moreover, the applicant considers it remarkable to find,
on reading the contested decision, that the Commission              According to the applicant, the contested decision was
has not expressed any view on the fundamental issues in             adopted in breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations.
the matter, namely: the true nature of the recipient of the         The appointing authority failed to undertake a proper
aid, the analysis of the market, the definition of a small          assessment of the merits of the officials eligible for
order and the proportionality of the aid. From that point           promotion, inasmuch as it did not take into account
of view, it also alleges failure to provide reasons, all the        criteria such as the priority recommendation made by her
more serious in the circumstances as the aid in question is         Director-General and the level of responsibility which she
one that, a priori, cannot be given the benefit of any              actually assumed.
derogation, since it is operating aid for exports granted to
a single undertaking and is not intended to disappear or
lessen with time.                                                   By omitting to provide the applicant with a precise and
                                                                    pertinent statement of the reasons for its decision not to
                                                                    follow the recommendation of the Joint Promotion
The applicant also claims that the contested decision               Committee, the appointing authority infringed Article 25
contains several manifest errors of assessment, as regards          of the Staff Regulations.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.12.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 378/21
Lastly, the appointing authority committed a manifest               before the end of the test, the invigilators distributed
error of assessment by failing to recognise the                     among the candidates concerned a photocopy of the page
appropriateness, having regard to the delicate nature of            missing from the questionnaire and informed them that
the applicant's situation, of promoting her at the earliest         they would be given additional time to answer. That
possible juncture in the interests of the service.                  information, however, was contradicted because, at the
                                                                    end of the test, as the instructions to candidates provided,
                                                                    the person responsible for conducting the test requested
                                                                    the candidates concerned to stop writing, and their scripts
                                                                    were collected.
Action brought on 2 October 1998 by Yvan Torre                      According to the applicants, these irregularities in the
and Others against the Commission of the European                   manner in which test (a) was conducted distort the results
                           Communities                              of the test and render the selection board's decision
                        (Case T-159/98)                             invalid. They further claim that there was a breach of the
                                                                    instructions to candidates, as well as infringement of the
                          (98/C 378/38)                             principles of equal treatment and sound administration.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    Finally, the applicants submit that, contrary to the
                                                                    obligation to state reasons, the contested decisions do not
An action against the Commission of the European                    contain any reasoning other than the marks obtained by
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   the applicants in tests (a) to (d), along with a reference to
Instance of the European Communities on 2 October 1998              Point VII.A.1 of the notice of competition, which specified
by Yvan Torre, Donatella Ineichen and Alessandro                    that candidates had to obtain the minimum mark required
Cavallaro, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-               for test (a) in order for tests (e) and (f) to be corrected.
Albert Lucas, of the LieÁge Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
30 Rue de Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Action brought on 2 October 1998 by NV Firma LeÂon
Ð annul the decisions of the selection board for                    Van Parys and NV Pacific Fruit Company against the
    Competition       EUR/A/123      awarding      them    an                Commission of the European Communities
    insufficient mark for test (a) of the competition in                                   (Case T-160/98)
    question and, consequently, refusing to admit them to
    tests (e) and (f), decisions which were notified to them                                 (98/C 378/39)
    by letters of 2 July 1998 from Mrs Anne D'Haen-
    Bertier, on behalf of the chairman of the selection                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
    board;
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Ð annul the decisions of the selection board for
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
    Competition EUR/A/123 affected by the illegality of
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 2 October 1998
    the decisions challenged;
                                                                    by NV Firma LeÂon Van Parys and NV Pacific Fruit
                                                                    Company, both established in Antwerp (Belgium),
Ð in the alternative to the latter point, suspend the               represented by P. Vlaemminck, L. Van Den Hende and J.
    procedure for filling the posts concerned by                    Holmens, of the Ghent Bar, with an address for service in
    Competition EUR/A/123 until such time as it has been            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11
    possible to re-organise test (a) and for it to be held          Rue Goethe.
    under proper conditions for all Italian-language
    candidates admitted to the competition, and for the
    Commission to draw all proper consequences from the             The applicant claims that the Court should:
    results of that test.
                                                                    Ð annul the decision taken by the Commission between
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     12 March and 5 August 1998, by which it decided to
                                                                        reduce the quantities of imported bananas declared by
                                                                        the applicant for the 1996 reference year for the
The applicants, whose native language is Italian, applied               purposes of determining the quantity of bananas
to sit Competition EUR/A/123 and chose the area of                      which the applicants are authorised to import from
financial management. During the test, one of the                       third countries under the tariff quota set by the EC for
candidates, who was sitting it in Italian, indicated to the             1998;
invigilation staff of the Recruitment' unit that a page was
missing from the questionnaire for test (a), namely that
relating to questions 24 to 28 inclusive. Two minutes               Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.