CELEX: C2000/135/49
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-63/00: Action brought on 20 March 2000 by Lars Bo Rasmussen against the Commission of the European Communities

C 135/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.5.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 20 March 2000 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                   (Case T-63/00)
The present application has been brought against Commission
Decision C(1999) 4559 withdrawing the financial contribution
granted to the applicant, a national union of producers’                                          (2000/C 135/49)
associations in the sector, by Decision C(84) 500/213 of
29 June 1984. The financial contribution had been requested
pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 of 15 Februa-
ry 1977 on common measures to improve the conditions                                        (Language of the case: French)
under which agricultural products are processed and market-
ed (1), for the purpose of building three facilities for the storage,    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
processing and marketing of olive oil in the communes of                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Castri (Lecce), Eboli (Salerno) and S. Lorenzo (Regio Calabria).         European Communities on 20 March 2000 by Lars Bo Ras-
                                                                         mussen, residing at Dalheim, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg,
                                                                         represented by Michel Karp, of the Luxembourg Bar.
The contested decision is based on three main heads of
complaint: the funded establishments failed to operate, the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
facilities were not built as planned, incorrect information was
provided concerning the existence, in the regions in question,
                                                                         — annul the decision of the Commission of 22 July 1999 not
of facilities for processing and storing olive oil of the same
                                                                              to grant to the applicant special leave of two and a half
type as those funded with the aid of the contribution.
                                                                              days from 11 March (afternoon) to 13 March 1998;
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay to the applicant token damages
The pleas and principal arguments are the same as those made                  of one franc as compensation for the non-material damage
in Case T-61/00 APOL v Commission. In particular, it is                       suffered;
alleged that:
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay the costs.
— the Commission misunderstood the information provided
     by the applicant concerning the existence, in the regions
     in question, of facilities of the same type as those planned        Pleas in law and main arguments
     by the applicant;
                                                                         The applicant contests the refusal of the appointing authority
                                                                         to grant him two and a half days’ special leave in order to
— the Commission was wrong to conclude that certain plant                enable him to vote in the general elections which took place
     and works failed to conform to the applicant’s plans as             in Denmark in 1998.
     approved;
                                                                         It is stated in that respect that he was not able to submit
— the fact that operations fell behind schedule is directly              documentary evidence of his participation in the elections,
     attributable to the financial difficulties which beset the          since Danish legislation does not allow the polling station to
     applicant from 1989 onwards following a loss of more                certify the voter’s participation in the ballot. Consequently, he
     than LIT 3 500 000 000 it incurred when it was required             provided proof of his participation by means of a declaration
     to reimburse the value of produce it was storing which              on his honour.
     was stolen;
                                                                         In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:
— the irregularities in the present case are only partial.
                                                                         — defective and inadequate statement of reasons on which
                                                                              the contested decision is based;
(1) OJ 1977 L 51, p. 1.                                                  — breach of Article 57 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                         — breach of the principle of equal treatment, in so far as,
                                                                              according to the solution adopted by the defendant, only
                                                                              officials who are nationals of a Member State which
                                                                              provides in its legislation for the issue of a certificate of
                                                                              voting can be entitled to the special leave at issue;
 ---pagebreak--- 13.5.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 135/29
— breach of the principle of subsidiarity, in so far as the              Action brought on 20 March 2000 by ‘B’ against the
    possibility for the applicant to be entitled to such leave                    Commission of the European Communities
    requires an amendment to the Danish legislation on the
    matter.                                                                                       (Case T-66/00)
                                                                                                 (2000/C 135/51)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 20 March 2000 by ‘B’, of Tervue-
Action brought on 20 March 2000 by Angeliki Ioannou                      ren, Belgium, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise
          against the Council of the European Union                      Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
                         (Case T-65/00)                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — rule that the purported decision of 4 March 1999 is not in
                        (2000/C 135/50)                                      fact a decision, and consequently restore the applicant’s
                                                                             rights;
                                                                         — in the alternative, annul the decision to withdraw the
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             dependent child allowance awarded to the applicant for
                                                                             her son, and the decision to reduce her expatriation
An action against the Council of the European Union was                      allowance with effect from 1 September 1997; and
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 20 March 2000 by Angeliki Ioannou, resid-                 — in the alternative, annul the decision to withdraw the
ing in Brussels, represented by Jean van Rossum, of the Brussels             education allowance awarded to the applicant for her son
Bar.                                                                         with effect from 1 September 1997;
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— annul the Council’s decision of 21 May 1999 refusing
    to appoint the applicant a probationary official of the              The applicant challenges the decision to withdraw her depen-
    institution;                                                         dent child allowance and education allowance, and the
                                                                         appointing authority’s decision to recover part of the allow-
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  ances paid. The withdrawal of the allowances arose from the
                                                                         Opinion of the Heads of Administration No 188/89, of
                                                                         30 January 1990, of which the applicant was only able to take
                                                                         cognizance in February 1999, and which fixes an upper
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          income limit beyond which a child of a servant of the
                                                                         Communities may no longer be deemed to be a dependent
                                                                         child.
The applicant, a former employee of the Benelux Economic
Union assigned to the Secretariat responsible for implementing           In support of her claims, the applicants alleges:
the Schengen agreement, contests the appointing authority’s
refusal to appoint her a probationary official upon the                  — Infringement of the decision of 21 January 1998 concern-
integration of the Schengen Secretariat into the General                     ing the exercise of authority granted under the Staff
Secretariat of the Council.                                                  Regulations to the appointing authority, in so far as
                                                                             decisions to grant and withdraw the awards at issue were
                                                                             not taken by the same authority as that which applies
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:                              Article 85 of the Staff Regulations;
— infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations and             — Infringement of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff
    of the rights of the defence;                                            Regulations;
                                                                         — The inapplicability, or alternatively the illegality of the
— in the present case, a manifest error of assessment.                       Opinion of the Heads of Administration No 188/89;
                                                                         — Infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                         — Failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons, and