CELEX: C2001/275/23
Language: en
Date: 2001-09-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-135/01: Action brought on 18 June 2001 by Giorgio Fedon & Figli S.p.A, Fedon S.r.l. and Fedon America USA Inc. against the Commission of the European Communities and the Council of the European Union

C 275/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      29.9.2001
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Action brought on 22 May 2001 by Ursula Klug against
                                                                                         the Council of the European Union
                                                                                                    (Case T-112/01)
                           of 7 June 2001
                                                                                                    (2001/C 275/22)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-202/00: Mario Costacurta v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities on 22 May 2001 by Ursula Klug, residing in
(Officials — Re-assignment of the applicant to a third                     Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere,
country in 1993 — Reintegration of the official in the                     avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Publications Office in 1996 — Loss of entitlement to the
derogating provisions of Annex X to the Staff Regulations                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Request to be reassigned to a third State submitted in
2000 on the basis of Annex X — Manifest inadmissibility                    —     annul the decision definitively establishing her staff report
   of the action directed against the Commission’s replies)                      for the period 1997-1999;
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                          (2001/C 275/21)
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The applicant in the present case contests certain assessments
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           contained in her staff report for the period 1997-1999.
                                                                           In support of her claim, she pleads:
In Case T-202/00: Mario Costacurta, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Luxem-                    —     breach of the staff report procedure as laid down in the
bourg, represented by M. Petit, lawyer, with an address for                      guidelines for staff reports published on 28 July 1989;
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
                                                                           —     a manifest error in the present case, resulting from
Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application
for annulment directed, first, against the measure contained in                  confusion between sick leave and absenteeism, as regards
                                                                                 the assessments appearing under the heading ‘Consistency
one of the letters from the Director of the Publications Office
                                                                                 of performance’.
sent to the applicant in reply to his request to be reassigned to
a third State, dated 6 June 2000, and, secondly, against the
implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint of 21 July 2000
— the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 7 June 2001, the
operative part of which is as follows:                                     Action brought on 18 June 2001 by Giorgio Fedon & Figli
                                                                           S.p.A, Fedon S.r.l. and Fedon America USA Inc. against
                                                                           the Commission of the European Communities and the
                                                                                           Council of the European Union
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                                    (Case T-135/01)
2.    The applicant shall bear all the costs, including those relating                              (2001/C 275/23)
      to the interlocutory proceedings.
                                                                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(1) OJ 2000 C 285.
                                                                           ties and the Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                           before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                           on 18 June 2001 by Giorgio Fedon & Figli S.p.A, Fedon S.r.l.
                                                                           and Fedon America USA Inc., represented by I. van Bael,
                                                                           A. Cevese and F. Di Gianni, Avvocati.
 ---pagebreak--- 29.9.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 275/11
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     assess the right of Fedon and order the Community to
      pay compensation of LIT 4 432 590 743 or such other                The applicant, a European Central Bank employee, is the father
      sum as the Court may consider reasonable, subject to the           of two sons. He applied for an education allowance in
      possibility of adjustment for the duration of the obligation       respect of his sons’ attendance at an international school. The
      to pay additional duties, plus interest at the Italian             defendant refused that application, referring to the fact that
      statutory rate from the time of actual payment by Fedon            the applicant did not satisfy the conditions for receiving the
      to the American customs administration of 95,4 % of the            allowance since he was not entitled to an expatriation allow-
      value of the goods (increased duties), until settlement,           ance of 16 %.
      plus interest for delay of 8%, in accordance with Com-
      munity case-law, in the event of delay in paying the sum           The applicant submits that the refusal to grant the education
      claimed;                                                           allowance is contrary to Treaty rights conferred on him and in
                                                                         particular infringes the duty owed by the defendant to have
—     order the Community to pay the costs.                              regard for his interests.
                                                                         He also submits that Article 19(i) of the Conditions of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Employment offends against the principle of equal treatment.
                                                                         The defendant has acknowledged in Article 9(c) of the
                                                                         Conditions of Employment that it is obliged to observe that
The applicants, which export spectacle cases to the United               principle. An education allowance under Article 19 of the
States, claim damages for loss following the adoption by the             Conditions of Employment is granted only to employees who
United States of certain retaliatory commercial measures                 already satisfy the conditions for the grant of an expatriation
affecting their industry.                                                allowance. Therefore, two categories of employees, namely
                                                                         employees who meet those conditions and employees who do
                                                                         not, are treated differently. The unequal treatment would be
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in              objectively justified only if the aim of the expatriation allow-
Case T-69/00 FIAM and FIAM Technologies v Council and                    ance were identical to that of the education allowance, which
Commission (1).                                                          is not the case. The aims of the allowances are fundamentally
                                                                         different, so that it is not justified to link the grant of an
                                                                         education allowance pursuant to Article 19(i) of the Conditions
(1) OJ C 135 of 13. 5. 2000, p. 30.                                      of Employment to the conditions for an expatriation allowance
                                                                         pursuant to Article 17.
Action brought on 6 July 2001 by Emanuele Nicastro
              against the European Central Bank                          Action brought on 4 July 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez
                                                                         Moreno against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                                         ties
                         (Case T-152/01)
                                                                                                 (Case T-153/01)
                         (2001/C 275/24)
                                                                                                 (2001/C 275/25)
                   (Language of the Case: German)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
on 6 July 2001 by Emanuele Nicastro, of Frankfurt am Main,               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
represented by Dr Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and Silvia             European Communities on 4 July 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez
Mittländer, Lawyers.                                                     Moreno, residing in Berlin, represented by Georges Vander-
                                                                         sanden and Dominique Dugois, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision by the European Central Bank to
      refuse him an education allowance for his two sons;                —     annul the decision taken by the defendant to apply an
                                                                               age limit set at 65 years to freelance interpreters and
—     order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.                        therefore to apply that age limit to her;