CELEX: C2003/200/55
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-217/03: Action brought on 19 June 2003 by Fédération Nationale de la Coopération Bétail et Viande (FNCBV) against the Commission of the European Communities

C 200/30              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         23.8.2003
Decision of the Opposition       Acceptance of the opposition             principle of non-discrimination. The applicant points out that
Division:                        for services falling within              the defendant did not conduct an examination of the compara-
                                 class 42, rejection of the oppo-         tive merits of the applicant with those of the officials of all the
                                 sition for products falling with-        Directorates-General eligible for promotion, but limited itself to
                                 in classes 9 and 35                      the ‘quota’ which had been allocated to the applicant's Direc-
                                                                          torate-General, gave an advantage to officials considered as
                                                                          reserve candidates from the previous year's promotion proce-
                                                                          dure and did not take account of applicant's transfer, during
Decision of the Board of         Action upheld, contested deci-           the reference period, from one Directorate-General to another.
Appeal:                          sion annulled
Pleas in law:                    Infringement of Article 8(5) of
                                 (EC) Regulation No 40/94 and,
                                 in the alternative, infringement
                                 of Article 8(1)(b) of the regula-
                                 tion                                     Action brought on 19 June 2003 by Fédération Nationale
                                                                          de la Coopération Bétail et Viande (FNCBV) against the
                                                                                    Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                    (Case T-217/03)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 200/55)
Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Mário Paulo Tenreiro
     against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                              (Language of the case: French)
                         (Case T-216/03)
                         (2003/C 200/54)                                  An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                          nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                   (Language of the case: French)                         European Communities on 19 June 2003 by the Fédération
                                                                          Nationale de la Coopération Bétail et Viande, (National Coop-
                                                                          erative Association for Livestock and Meat) established in Paris,
                                                                          represented by Robert Collin and Michel Ponsard, lawyers, with
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                   an address for service in Luxembourg.
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 June 2003 by Mário Paulo
Tenreiro, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.
                                                                          —     annul Decision C.38.179/F3 of 2 April 2003 in so far as
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     it affects the applicant;
—     annul the decision not to promote the applicant in the              —     alternatively quash the fine imposed by that decision;
      2002 promotion procedure, as it appears from the
      absence of the applicant's name in the list of officials
      promoted to grade A4 published in the Administrative                —     in the further alternative reduce it;
      Notice of 14 August 2002 (No 69-2002);
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
—     declare that the applicant is entitled to the actual promo-
      tion which should have been granted him in the 2002
      promotion procedure, with retrospective effect and full
      restoration of his financial and career rights;
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs.                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          By its contested decision, the Commission imposed on the
                                                                          applicant and five other French associations of producers and
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          slaughterers a fine based on alleged infringements of
                                                                          Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty, in respect of an agreement to
In support of his action the applicant pleads infringement of             suspend beef imports to France and to fix a minimum price
Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations and breach of the                  for certain categories of animals.
 ---pagebreak--- 23.8.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 200/31
In support of its action the applicant relies on the following               Action brought on 16 June 2003 by Luigi Maruccio
grounds:                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                       (Case T-241/03)
In respect of its claims for the annulment of the contested
decision:
                                                                                                      (2003/C 200/56)
—      alleged infringements of procedural rules, more particu-
       larly alleged infringement of the rights of the defence, by                              (Language of the case: Italian)
       reason of the alleged failure to provide reasons in the
       statement of objections, and alleged infringement of
       essential procedural requirements owing to the alleged
       insufficiency of the reasoning of the decision on not                 An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
       exceeding the ceiling of 10 % of turnover in determining              nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
       the amount of the fine;                                               European Communities on 16 June 2003 by Luigi Maruccio,
                                                                             represented by Prof. Luciano Garofalo.
—      manifest errors of appraisal and law concerning the
       existence and the characterisation of the agreement                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
       covered by the contested decision and its effect on
       competition;                                                          —     annul the note dated 15 October 2002;
—      alleged infringement of Regulation 26/62 (1) in that the              —     order the defendant to pay the applicant damages in the
       Commission should have granted the derogation provided                      sum of EUR 100 000, without prejudice to any subse-
       for by Article 2 of that regulation;                                        quent applicant for further damages.
—      alleged infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation 17/
       62 (2) in that the Commission has given no information
       on the turnover used in determining the fines and has                 Pleas in law and main arguments
       not checked whether the amount of the fine was within
       the limit of 10 % of turnover.
                                                                             The applicant was employed at the defendant's delegation in
                                                                             Angola. He challenges the decision contained in a note dated
In respect of its claims for the reduction of the amount of the              15 October 2002 informing him, amongst other things, that
fine imposed, the applicant relies on the following grounds:                 in his absence on sick leave in Italy, where he was awaiting
                                                                             reassignment to another service, it would be necessary for
                                                                             agents of the delegation to enter the lodgings reserved for his
—      alleged infringement of Point 5(b) of the guidelines for              occupation and to permit others to enter thereon in order to
       determining the amount of the fine (3), in relation to the            pack up his personal effects.
       calculation of the amount of the fine;
                                                                             In support of his claim, the applicants argues that, irrespective
—      alleged manifest errors of appraisal and law concerning               of whether or not the note was put into effect, it contains a
       the characterisation of the infringement as ‘very serious’            decision which is unlawful for the following reasons:
       and of the agreement as ‘secret’, the alleged failure to take
       account of extenuating circumstances (lack of effect on               —     Infringement of the law by reason of trespass to the
       the market, cessation of the infringement as soon as the                    home, unlawful appropriation of property and invasion
       Commission intervened, the applicant's exclusively passive                  of privacy;
       role in the making of the agreement), and the determina-
       tion as to the duration of the agreement;                             —     Breach of the principle of ‘neminem laedere’ in that the
                                                                                   note in issue was sent against a background of aggressive
—      alleged infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation 17/62                   behaviour towards and persecution of the applicant;
       concerning the fixing of the amount of the fine;
                                                                             —     Breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
                                                                                   officials;
—      alleged infringement of the principle that penalties should
       not be cumulative.
                                                                             —     Breach of the principle of force majeure and of the prin-
                                                                                   ciple of reasonableness in that the defendant failed to take
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1959-62 (II), p. 20.                               the applicant's state of health into account.
(2) OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962 (I), p. 87. Amended on the
    last occasion by Regulation (EC) No 1216/1992 (OJ 1999 L 148,
    p. 5).                                                                   Lastly, the applicant argues breach of the duty to state reasons
(3) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to            and of the principle of the protection of legitimate expecta-
    Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 etc., (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).             tions.