CELEX: C2003/007/48
Language: en
Date: 2003-01-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-338/02: Action brought on 13 November 2002 by the SEGI association, Araitz Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga against Council of the European Union

C 7/24                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11.1.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the
selection board in competition COM/R/A/2000 refusing to
include her name on the reserve list.                                    Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of her claims, the applicant relies on four pleas             The present action seeks the annulment of the decision by
in law. First, she alleges breach of the principle of non-               which the applicant was notified of her non-admission to the
discrimination, breach of essential procedural requirements,             tests in competition COM/A/10/01 because she was beyond
infringement of the rules governing the organisation of tests            the age-limit provided for in the notice of competition.
and infringement of Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff
Regulations. In the applicant’s view, the selection board was
not composed of a stable number of members and did not                   The pleas in law and main arguments have previously been
carry out its work impartially.                                          put forward in T-219/02 Lutz Herrera v Commission ( 1).
The applicant in her second plea in law alleges infringement
                                                                         (1 ) OJ 2002 C 233, p. 30.
of the competition notice.
Third, she alleges breach of the interest of the service,
infringement of Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment
of Other Servants of the European Communities and manifest
error of assessment.
Finally, the applicant pleads breach of the principle of equal           Action brought on 13 November 2002 by the SEGI
treatment between men and women, breach of the equal                     association, Araitz Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga
opportunity policy, breach of positive actions and breach of                        against Council of the European Union
the principle according to which the administration is bound
by the acts which it adopts.
                                                                                                  (Case T-338/02)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 7/48)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 11 November 2002 by Olga Lutz
Herrera against Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                        (Case T-337/02)                                  Communities on 13 November 2002 by the SEGI association,
                                                                         Araitz Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga, established in
                          (2003/C 7/47)                                  Baiona (France) and in Donostia (Spain), Araitz Zubimendi
                                                                         Izaga, residing in Hernani (Spain), and Aritza Galarraga,
                                                                         residing in Senpere (France), represented by Didier Rouget,
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                        avocat.
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 November 2002 by Olga Lutz                    —     order the defendant to pay compensation amounting to
Herrera, residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón García-                    EUR 1 000 000 to the SEGI association and
Gallardo and Javier Guillem Carrau, lawyers.                                   EUR 100 000 to each of the other two applicants, Araitz
                                                                               Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     find that those amounts give rise to default interest at the
                                                                               rate of 4,5 % per annum with effect from the date of the
—     annul the decision of the Commission refusing Olga                       judgment of the Court of First Instance and until actual
      Lutz’s application to take part in COM/A/10/01; and                      payment is effected;
 ---pagebreak--- 11.1.2003               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 7/25
—     order the defendant to bear their own costs and to pay             Action brought on 14 November 2002 by the Regiona
      those incurred by the applicants.                                  Siciliana against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                                     munities
                                                                                                  (Case T-341/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                   (2003/C 7/49)
SEGI and its two representatives are seeking compensation for
the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the abovementioned                              (Language of the case: Italian)
association’s name having been included in the list of terrorist
persons, groups and bodies, pursuant to Common Position
2001/931/CFSP (1), adopted on 27 December 2001, confirmed
by Council Common Position 2002/340/CFSP (2) adopted on
2 May 2001, and Council Common Position 2002/940/
                                                                         An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
CFSP (3) adopted on 17 June 2002.
                                                                         the European Communities on 14 November 2002 by the
                                                                         Regiona Siciliana, represented by the Avvocatura dello Stato,
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities.
In support of their arguments, the applicants claim that the
common position, which is the subject-matter of the action, is
vitiated by a number of irregularities, namely breach of a               The applicant claims that the Court should:
number of fundamental rights, liberties and principles, protect-
ed under the Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of
Fundamental Rights, such as the right to the presumption of              —     annul the Commission’s decision No 109206 of 5 Sep-
innocence, the right to a proper hearing, in so far as there is                tember 2002 on the closure of the major project ‘Messina-
no means of challenging the common position in question                        Palermo motorway’ (ERDF No 93.05.03.001 — ARINCO
through the courts, the right to freedom of speech, in particular              No 93.IT.16.009) and order the Commission of the
so far as concerns the right to self-determination and the                     European Communities to pay the costs
search for a solution to the Basque conflict by negotiation, and
the right to privacy.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants also claim that the procedure for the adoption
of Decision 2001/931/CFSP was unlawful in that on
27 December 2001 the Council adopted four measures to
combat terrorism and to define the list of terrorist persons,            The contested decision, which concerns the major project
groups and bodies. However, those four measures are closely              ‘Messina-Palermo motorway’ partly financed by contributions
linked and it is impossible to understand one without know-              from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), closed
ledge of the other three. Moreover, it would appear that                 the intervention procedure and decided that the costs of the
the European Parliament was consulted only in relation to                instalments which had been completed by the date of adoption
Regulation No 2580/2001 and not the other measures,                      of the decision were eligible. Consequently the decision
in particular Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. The latter                  concluded that there would be a settlement of the ERDF
measures, although they are, in formal terms, common                     contribution by unblocking EUR 26 378 246 with a balance
positions, contain provisions which fall within the scope of             to be recovered of EUR 58 036 177.
JHA (Justice and Home Affairs) or which reflect framework
decisions or positions which should have been the subject
of consultation with the European Parliament, pursuant to
Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union.                           In support of its claims the applicant puts forward the
                                                                         following arguments:
The applicants also allege breach of the rights of the defence           —     The contested decision is ultra vires in so far as it appears
and of the obligation to provide reasons.                                      to have been issued by the Director General for Regional
                                                                               Policy instead of by the Commission itself. Additionally,
                                                                               in the decisions of 22 December 1993 and 28 July 1995
                                                                               adopted earlier in the course of the project, the deadline
( 1) OJ L 344, of 28.12.2001, p. 93.                                           by which costs had to have been incurred in order to be
( 2) OJ L 116, of 3.5.2002, p. 75.                                             eligible for cofinancing was fixed as 31 December 1997,
( 3) OJ L 160, of 18.6.2002, p. 32.                                            whereas in the contested decision the eligibility of costs
                                                                               was for the first time correlated to the functionality,
                                                                               within a reasonable period of time, of the works in
                                                                               respect of which the costs were incurred.