CELEX: C2000/259/45
Language: en
Date: 2000-09-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-152/00: Action brought on 7 June 2000 by Maria Kayamanidou against the Commission of the European Communities

C 259/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.9.2000
In support of his claim, the applicant asserts:                          —     order that the costs be borne by the defendant.
—    that it is not appropriate to take into consideration the           Pleas in law and main arguments
     fact that the time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91
     of the Staff Regulations were not complied with, since,             The applicant claims that Article 1 of the contested decision
     first, the fact that the interview before the selection board       should be annulled in so far as it only declares Article 30(3) of
     in competition COM/B/612 did not take place and that
                                                                         Greek Law 2040/92 of 17/23.4.1992 (Greek Government
     the applicant did not attend the medical examination                Gazette No A’ 70 of 23.4.1992) as incompatible with the
     specifically referable to that competition gave rise to an
                                                                         common market.
     overwhelming state of uncertainty and, second, what
     happened in the present case amounts a defect rendering
     the contested decisions not voidable but absolutely void;           This application is based on the following grounds:
                                                                         —     There has been a manifest error of assessment of the facts
—    that the applicant did not sit the test corresponding to                  on the part of the Commission in concluding that
     competition COM/B/612 but that relating to competition                    Article 30(1) of Law 2040/92, imposing on ginning
     COM/B/611, and that the medical examination which he                      plants the obligation to pay to the Greek Cotton Board a
     attended and passed satisfactorily was expressly referable                levy amounting to 1 % of the total purchase price paid to
     to grade B1 principal assistants;                                         the growers per kilogram of delivered unginned cotton
                                                                               grown in Greece, is consonant with the market organis-
                                                                               ation.
—    that it is one thing to enter into service on the date
     proposed and quite another thing to accept the grade                —     There has been a manifest error of assessment of the facts
     proposed.                                                                 on the part of the Commission in failing to declare
                                                                               Article 30(1) of Law 2040/92 as incompatible with the
                                                                               common market.
                                                                         —     There has been a manifest error on the part of the
                                                                               Commission in failing to analyse separately the compati-
                                                                               bility of Law 2040/92 in relation with the EC State aids
                                                                               discipline.
                                                                         —     In the contested decision, the Commission totally failed
                                                                               to provide sufficient reasoning for refusing to analyse the
Action brought on 2 June 2000 by the Panhellenic Union                         compatibility of Article 30(1) of Law 2040/92 under the
of Cotton Ginners and Exporters against the Commission                         EC State Aid rules.
                 of the European Communities
                                                                         —     Alternatively, the Commission has committed a violation
                                                                               of an essential procedural requirement by taking an
                          (Case T-148/00)                                      extraordinarily long time in concluding the formal investi-
                                                                               gation procedure under Article 88(2) EC.
                          (2000/C 259/44)
                                                                         (1) OJ L 63, p. 27.
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Action brought on 7 June 2000 by Maria Kayamanidou
European Communities on 2 June 2000 by the Panhellenic                     against the Commission of the European Communities
Union of Cotton Ginners and Exporters, represented by
Dr. Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, Vassilis Akritidis and Juan                                      (Case T-152/00)
José Gutiérrez Gisbert of Hammond Suddards, Brussels.
                                                                                                  (2000/C 259/45)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
—    annul Article 1 of Commission Decision 2000/206/EC of
     20 July 1999 (1) on an aid scheme applied in Greece to              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     cotton by the Greek Cotton Board, in so far as it only              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     declares Article 30(3) of Law 2040/92 of 17/23.4.1992,              European Communities on 7 June 2000 by Maria Kayamani-
     and not Article 30(1) as well, as incompatible with the             dou, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersand-
     common market; and                                                  en, of the Brussels Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- 9.9.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 259/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision taken by the appointing authority of
      the Research Directorate-General rejecting her application         —     annul the Provisional Regulation to the extent that it
      for the vacant post (ref. no COM/R/7029/99) of head of                   imposes an anti-dumping duty of EUR 5,19 per tonne on
      the Mediterranean Unit in Directorate E of that Director-                Achema;
      ate-General and, in so far as may be necessary, annul the
      decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint;
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of the              —     order the Commission to pay the costs;
      Research Directorate-General appointing another candi-
      date to the post in question;
                                                                         —     take such other or further steps as justice may require.
—     order the Commission to pay compensation, provision-
      ally quantified in the sum of EUR 100 000, for the non-
      material damage suffered by the applicant;
—     order the defendant to take all the measures necessary in
      order to comply with the judgment annulling the afore-             Pleas in law and main arguments
      said decisions, namely by appointing the applicant to the
      post in question;
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                          The applicant in the present case, a joint stock company
                                                                         (limited liability company) established under the laws of
                                                                         Lithuania, which is the sole producer of Urea and Ammonium
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Nitrate (UAN) in Lithuania, attacks Regulation EC
                                                                         No 617/2000, imposing provisional anti-dumping duties on
The applicant maintains that she was unquestionably the                  imports of solution of urea and ammonium nitrate originating
person best qualified, on account of both her knowledge and              in Alegeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine and
her experience, to occupy the post in question, and that the             accepting, on a provisional basis, an undertaking offered by an
decision to appoint another candidate was taken solely because           exporting producer in Algeria (1).
that other candidate was an Italian national. She pleads, on
that basis, that the appointment procedure, as provided for in
Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff Regulations of officials, was used
in order to achieve aims other than those indicated by                   In support of its action the applicant submits that the
Articles 1a and 7(1) and the third paragraph of Article 27 of            Provisional Regulation:
the Staff Regulations and, consequently, that the contested
decisions are vitiated by a misuse of powers, that they disregard
the principle of non-discrimination and that they are based on           —     Is unlawful, because the normal value calculation on
manifest errors of assessment of the facts, resulting in errors                which it is based is contrary to Article 2(5) of Regulation
of law.                                                                        384/96 (2), in that it is, at last in part, based on unofficial
                                                                               records kept by Achema for promotional reasons and not
                                                                               based on ACHEMA’s accounts prepared in compliance
                                                                               with Lithuanian Law. Regulation 384/96 provides that
                                                                               the Commission should calculate costs on the basis of
                                                                               records kept by the party under investigation.
Action brought on 7 June 2000 by Achema against the
         Commission of the European Communities                          —     Is unlawful in that the normal value calculation on which
                                                                               it is based is contrary to Article 2(5) (b) of Regulation
                                                                               384/96, in so far as the challenged Regulation fails ti give
                         (Case T-155/00)                                       any consideration to adopting The Applicant’s used cost
                                                                               allocation methods.
                        (2000/C 259/46)
                                                                         —     Contains manifest errors of appreciation of the facts, in
                   (Language of the case: English)                             as much as it draws selectively from two distinct sets of
                                                                               accounts, one of which should not have been used at all,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      in an inconsistent and illogical manner, and as a result of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     these selective drawings, the normal value has been
European Communities on 7 June 2000 by Achema, represent-                      determined in an inappropriate and unreasonable man-
ed by Alastair Sutton and James Killick of White & Case,                       ner. Moreover, one of the two sets of accounts should
Brussels.                                                                      have not relate to the investigation period.