CELEX: C1996/077/31
Language: en
Date: 1996-03-16 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 13 December 1995 by Société Fotini Chiou against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-225/95)

16 . 3 . 96        [ EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 77/ 13
The applicants claim that the Court should :                        Action brought on 13 December 1995 by Société Fotini
                                                                    Chiou against the Commission of the European
— annul the European Commission's Decision of                                                 Communities
    23 October 1995 regarding French nuclear tests,                                        ( Case T-225/95 )
                                                                                              ( 96/C 77/31 )
— order the Commission to pay the costs of these
     proceedings .
                                                                                   (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The applicants, three citizens and residents of Tahiti ( French
Polynesia ), challenge the decision of the Commission of            An action against the Commission of the European
23 October 1995 , granting its assent under Article 34 ( 2 ) of     Communities was brought before the Court of First
the EAEC Treaty in relation to the French nuclear tests on          Instance of the European Communities on 13 December
the Pacific atoll of Mururoa . Alternatively, the present           1995 by Fotini Chiou, residing in Brussels, represented by
application should be considered as being brought against           Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
the decision by which the Commission refused to consider            in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 8-10
                                                                    Rue Mathias Hardt .
that Article 34 was applicable to the French nuclear
tests .
They submit that the defendant institution has, through this        The applicant claims that the Court should :
decision and the way in which it was reached, violated its
obligations under Community law, specifically under the
Euratom Treaty and Council Directive 88/835/Euratom . It            — annul the decision rejecting her complaint against the
is stressed on this point that the Commission should have                Commission's decision of 18 November 1994 ,
applied a purposive intepretation of the notion of
'particularly dangerous experiment' ( Article 34 ), which at a
minimum, in the light of the preamble of the EC Treaty,             — as far as is necessary, annul the decision of the
should have focused on the prevention of health and safety               Commission of 1 8 November excluding her from the list
hazards, rather than merely providing an interpretation                  of successful candidates in the internal competition
which restricts itself to 'a perceptible risk of significant             for movement of officials from Category C to
exposure of workers and the general public to ionizing                   Category B,
radiation '. On the basis of this purposive interpretation the
Commission should have conducted a much more extensive
                                                                    — order the defendant to pay the costs .
and thorough research into the possible health and safety
hazards involved .
Moreover, in applying Article 34 of the EAEC Treaty the             Pleas in law and main arguments:
Commission must take into account all three of the basic
principles contained in Article 6 of the Directive; i.e. the
justification of every activity resulting in an exposure to         In support of her action, the applicant submits pleas in law
ionizing radiation by the advantages that it produces, the 'as      and arguments similar to those put forward in Case
                                                                    T- 15 9/95 .
low as reasonably achievable' principle and the necessity of
specific dose-limits . However, the Commission has, without
any motivation, restricted itself to the third aspect alone .       She too bases her application on a manifest error of
                                                                    assessment, pointing out, first, that she holds several
The Commission has also ignored relevant rules of                   university qualifications and since 1992 has been
international law, including the 1982 United Nations                performing duties which are well beyond those of
Convention on the Law of the Sea , the 1985 Asean                   Category C and, secondly, that her performance in the oral
Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural                 test deserved a mark higher than the minimum required . In
Resources, the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity.             addition, the applicant claims that the person who was
                                                                    chairman of the selection board did not possess the
                                                                    necessary independence to assess her aptitude , since that
Finally, it is further submitted that the European                  person was also the chairman of the selection board in a
Commission has violated fundamental rights of the                   previous competetion, the result of which forms the subject
applicants including, but not limited to, the right to life as      of an action brought by the applicant before the Court of
guaranteed in Article 2 of the European Convention on               First Instance; in that respect, she pleads infringement of
 Human Rights and Article 6 of the International Covenant           Article 14 of the Staff Regulations of officials and also of the
on Civil and Political Rights, and also the right to privacy         rules governing the activities of selection boards .
 and family life as guaranteed in Article 8 of the European
 Convention on Human Rights .