CELEX: C1999/281/50
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-174/99: Action brought on 30 July 1999 by Ana Caprile and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

C 281/26               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.10.1999
— order the selection board to pay compensation for the                  — annul any recruitments made by the Commission in
    damage caused, in such amount as the Court shall consider                consequence of competition No COM/A/15/98 and on the
    fair and reasonable;                                                     basis of the lists of suitable candidates published in the
                                                                             Official Journal on 3 July 1999;
— order the selection board to pay the costs, pursuant to
    Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure.                                — order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant contests the decision of the selection board in            The applicants contest, in particular, the manner in which
competition No COM A/12/98 by which it decided, on the                   competition No COM/A/15/98 was conducted and the results
ground that she allegedly lacked the minimum requisite                   thereof. They maintain in that connection that the competition
professional experience, as provided for in the competition              notice provided for two options, namely ‘fraud prevention’
notice, not admit her to the written tests.                              and ‘justice and home affairs’. According to the applicants, the
                                                                         tests in respect of the ‘justice and home affairs’ option related
In support of her claims, the applicant advances the following           very extensively to the combatting of fraud, with the result
pleas:                                                                   that there was discrimination in favour of candidates who had
                                                                         chosen the first option.
— infringement and misapplication of Article III(3) of the
    notice of competition;                                               In support of their claims, the applicants plead:
— breach of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons;            — infringement of the terms of the competition notice;
    and
                                                                         — contravention of the principle of equality between candi-
— failure to have regard to the general principle of sound                   dates;
    administration and transparency.
                                                                         — failure to observe the principle of sound administration;
According to the applicant, the competition notice recognised                and
as valid evidence of professional experience periods of appren-          — misuse of powers in the present case.
ticeship, specialisation or professional training, apart from
supplementary training periods. She maintains in that regard
                                                                         In the latter regard, the applicants maintain that the defendant
that the Commission failed to take account of all the certificates
                                                                         used the procedure for pre-selection on the basis of the
and attestations contained in the competition file. At all events,
                                                                         documentation in order to attempt to eliminate the partici-
had the defendant considered that documentation was unclear,
                                                                         pation of Mr Mazuel as a candidate in the competition. In
it should at least have asked for explanatory clarification in
                                                                         addition, it is clear from a comparison between the directory
relation to it.
                                                                         of Commission staff and the names of the persons included in
                                                                         the list of suitable candidates that the competition was
                                                                         organised with a view to offering establishment to contractual
                                                                         agents of the Commission and not with a view to the
                                                                         external recruitment of true specialists possessing skills and
                                                                         qualifications corresponding to the objectives publicised in the
                                                                         notice of competition.
Action brought on 29 July 1999 by Gilbert Elkaïm and
Philippe Mazuel against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                         (Case T-173/99)
                         (1999/C 281/49)                                 Action brought on 30 July 1999 by Ana Caprile and
                                                                         Others against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                                      munities
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                                  (Case T-174/99)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                        (1999/C 281/50)
European Communities on 29 July 1999 by Gilbert Elkaïm
residing in Paris, and Philippe Mazuel, residing in Brussels,
represented by Nicolas Ravailhe, of the Brussels Bar, with an                               (Language of the case: French)
address for service at the latter’s Chambers, 6 Rue Hydraulique,
Brussels.                                                                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              European Communities on 30 July 1999 by Ana Caprile,
— annul open competition No COM/A/15/98;                                 residing in Belgium, Fabrizio Dell’Olio, residing in Italy, and
                                                                         Konrad Fuhrmann and Olivier Radelet, residing in Belgium,
— annul the lists of suitable candidates published, following            represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the
    that competition, on 3 July 1999 in the Official Journal (OJ         Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    C 187, p. 22);                                                       offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.10.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 281/27
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               In support of its claim, the applicant submits that the contested
                                                                          decision:
— annul the decisions taken by the selection board in
    competition No COM/A/10/98 excluding the applicants                   — infringes Article 253 EC, in so far as, in the circumstances
    from the tests subsequent to the pre-selection tests, the                 of the present case, it is not sufficient for the Commission
    said decisions being contained in letters sent to the                     merely to state that Article 82 EC does not prevent an
    applicants on 16 June 1999;                                               undertaking which has a monopoly from expanding into
                                                                              other areas. The applicant stresses that, to its knowledge,
— consequently, annul all of the steps taken and acts done                    the decision is the first one in which the Commission
    subsequently in the procedure relating to competition                     expresses its views on the question whether an undertaking
    No COM/A/10/98;                                                           enjoying an exclusive right to perform a service of general
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                      interest can use the profits deriving from the reserved
                                                                              market to acquire control of an undertaking in a neigh-
                                                                              bouring liberalised country.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           — ignores the fact that the use of profits deriving from an
                                                                              exclusive right which is granted solely in order to ensure
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                   performance of a service of general economic interest
T-172/99 Pentericci v Commission (1).                                         would constitute an abuse of a dominant position, pro-
                                                                              hibited under Article 82 EC.
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 340, of 7.11.98, p. 25.
Action brought on 2 August 1999 by UPS Europe NV/SA
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      Action brought on 4 August 1999 by Colette Jemaa
                                                                                   against the Council of the European Union
                          (Case T-175/99)
                                                                                                   (Case T-176/99)
                         (1999/C 281/51)
                                                                                                  (1999/C 281/52)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                An action against the Council of the European Union was
Communities on 2 August 1999 by UPS Europe NV/SA,                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
represented by T.R. Ottervanger and D. Arts, with an address              Communities on 4 August 1999 by Colette Jemaa, residing
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loeff Claeys                 in Geneva (Switzerland), represented by Jean-Noël Louis,
Verbeke, 5 rue Charles Martel.                                            Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brus-
                                                                          sels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission’s decision of 10 June 1999 rejecting               The applicant claims that the Court should:
    the applicant’s complaint;
                                                                          — annul the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for
— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the                       authorisation to rent and occupy, from 1 April 1998, an
    applicant in the present proceedings;                                     apartment corresponding to the needs of her family at a
                                                                              monthly rent of CHF 4 800 plus service charges;
— take such further action as the Court may deem appro-
    priate.                                                               — order the defendant to pay an allowance corresponding to
                                                                              the amount of that rent plus service charges from 1 April
                                                                              1998 and interest at the annual rate of 6 % from the date
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               on which the rental payments in question fell due;
                                                                          — order the defendant in addition to pay, by way of
The applicant in the present case, which is also the applicant                compensation for the material damage suffered, the sum
in Case T-127/98 UPS Europe v Commission, (1) challenges the                  of CHF 100 216, plus the sum of 50 000 euro by way of
Commission’s decision rejecting its complaint, but only that                  compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the
part of it which concerns Article 82 EC and relates to the                    applicant and her family;
concentration by means of which Deutsche Post AG (DPAG)
intends to acquire control of DHL International Ltd.                      — order the defendant to pay the costs.