CELEX: C2004/047/73
Language: en
Date: 2004-02-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-435/03: Action brought on 24 December 2003 by the Regione Siciliana against the Commission of the European Communities

21.2.2004             EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 47/39
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      Gibbesi’, ‘Messina-Palermo motorway major project’,
                                                                                 ‘Aragona Favara’ and ‘Piana di Catania’, and all other acts
—     Annul the decision of the European Parliament to move                      resulting from it; Order the Commission of the European
      on to the recruiting phase provided for in Article 29(1)(b)                Communities to pay the costs.
      of the Staff Regulations, namely the organisation of an
      internal competition, in order to fill the post of Deputy
      Head of Division of the French Translation Division
      (Vacancy Notice No 9192);
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The Regione Siciliana has brought an action before the Court
In support of his application, the applicant alleges, first,               of First Instance of the European Communities for the
infringement of Article 233 of the EC Treaty inasmuch as the               annulment of Commission Decision BUDG/C3/EB/WH
Parliament failed to comply properly with the judgment of the              D(2003) 10.5 — 191 No 331997 of 24 October 2003 on
Court of First Instance of 15 November 2000 in Case                        ‘setting off the Commission’s claims against its debts’, included
T-261/99 Dehon v Parliament. The applicant further alleges                 in the table annexed which sets out the ‘set off prescribed on
infringement of Article 29(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations and              7 November 2003’, with reference to amounts relating to the
breach of the principle that officials must have reasonable                European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) applicable to
career prospects.                                                          the ‘Porto Empedocle major project’, ‘Diga Gibbesi’, ‘Messina-
                                                                           Palermo motorway major project’, ‘Aragona Favara’ and ‘Piana
                                                                           di Catania’, and all other acts resulting from it.
                                                                           In support of its action the Regione Siciliana alleges:
Action brought on 24 December 2003 by the Regione
Siciliana against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                           1.    Infringement and/or erroneous application of Articles 71
                             munities
                                                                                 and 73 of Council Regulation No 1605 of 25 June
                                                                                 2002 (1) and Articles 83 and 86 of Commission
                         (Case T-435/03)                                         implementing Regulation No 2342 of 23 December
                                                                                 2002 (2) in so far as the contested decision has set off
                                                                                 against the credits of the Regione Siciliana certain debts
                          (2004/C 47/73)                                         in the form of interest for late payment alleged to have
                                                                                 accrued to the Regione during periods in which, had the
                                                                                 Commission applied the Community rules according to
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                               the law and timeously, no such interest would have
                                                                                 become due;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  2.    Infringement and erroneous application of Articles 73
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       and 187 of Council Regulation No 1605 of 25 June 2002
European Communities on 24 December 2003 by the Regione                          and Article 83 of Commission implementing Regulation
Siciliana, represented by A. Cingolo, avvocato dello Stato.                      No 2342 of 23 December 2002 as regards the starting
                                                                                 date for the application of the compulsory set off of
                                                                                 credits and debits to the Commission;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul Commission Decision BUDG/C3/EB/WH D(2003)                      3.    Misuse of powers on grounds of contradiction between
      10.5 — 191 No 331997 of 24 October 2003 on ‘setting                        subsequent acts and infringement of the principle of
      off the Commission’s claims against its debts’, included in                legitimate expectations in so far as the Commission
      the table annexed which sets out the ‘set off prescribed                   contradicted its own earlier decisions even against the
      on 7 November 2003’, with reference to amounts relating                    Regione Siciliana as regards the lawfulness of using a set
      to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)                           off to extinguish financial obligations similar to those in
      applicable to the ‘Porto Empedocle major project’, ‘Diga                   the present case;
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/40                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         21.2.2004
4.    Infringement (in various respects) of Article 73 of Regu-             European Communities on 26 December 2003 by Kelvin
      lation No 1605 of 2002 and Article 32 of Council                      William Stephens, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas
      Regulation (EC) No 1260 of 21 June 1999 (3), in that the              Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      Commission unlawfully retained the credit owed to the
      Regione Siciliana substantially after the time when a                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
      lawful and unexceptionable application for payment had
      been made.                                                            —     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
                                                                                  23 December 2002, in so far as it did not award the
(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June                      applicant additional seniority and therefore reclassified
    2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget             him in Grade A6, Step 2, instead of Grade A6, Step 3;
    of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248 of 16.09.02, p. 1).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of                     —     Annul, so far as necessary, the decision of the appointing
    23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implemen-                 authority of 4 September 2003, notified to the applicant
    tation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the                on 17 September 2003, rejecting complaint R/155/03;
    Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
    European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357 of 31.12.02, p. 1).                 —     Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying                   ings.
    down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161
    of 26.06.1999, p. 1).
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            Following the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases
                                                                            C-389/98 P and C-459/98 P, the Commission reconsidered
                                                                            under Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations the classification
Action brought on 26 December 2003 by Kelvin William                        of officials who used remedies within the meaning of Article 91
Stephens against Commission of the European Communi-                        of the Staff Regulations. Following that exercise, the Com-
                                 ties                                       mission adopted the contested decision in respect of the
                                                                            applicant.
                          (Case T-438/03)
                                                                            In support of his action, the applicant claims, as regards
                           (2004/C 47/74)                                   additional seniority, that there has been a breach of the
                                                                            Commission decisions of 6 June 1973 and 1 September 1983
                   (Language of the case: French)                           on the criteria applicable to appointment in grade and to
                                                                            classification in step on recruitment, a breach of Article 5(3)
                                                                            of the Staff Regulations, and of the principle of equal treatment
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   and, last, a breach of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations and
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  of the obligation to state reasons.