CELEX: C2000/285/32
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-194/00: Action brought on 26 July 2000 by Nuno Antas de Campos against European Parliament

7.10.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 285/17
European Communities on 21 July 2000 by the Regione                     Action brought on 25 July 2000 by Werner F. Edlinger
Siciliana, represented by Francesca Quadri, lawyer, with an               against the Commission of the European Communities
address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy,
5 Rue Marie-Adelaïde.
                                                                                                 (Case T-191/00)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                      (2000/C 285/31)
—      annul the decision of the Commission of the European
       Communities of 22 December 1999;                                                    (Language of the case: German)
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 25 July 2000 by Werner F. Edling-
                                                                        er, of Vienna, represented by Dr Friedrich Fritsch, Rechtsan-
                                                                        walt, Vienna.
Pleas in law and principal arguments
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The present action is directed against the Commission’s
decision of 22 December 1999 on the State aid scheme                    —     declare that the Commission of the European Communi-
implemented by Italy for the production, processing and                       ties has unlawfully omitted to take any steps, in response
marketing of products listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty, in so               to his letters of 6 April and 22 May 2000 requesting the
far as it declares the aid granted pursuant to Article 6 of                   same, with a view to having the illegal measures against
Sicilian Regional Law No 68 of 27 September 1995 in favour                    Austria lifted.
of undertakings operating in the agriculture and fisheries
sectors to be incompatible with the common market and
requires Italy to withdraw the aid in question.                         Pleas in law and main arguments
That Law reproduces, in essence, the scheme set up by Regional          The applicant is an Austrian citizen. He states that, following
Law No 32 of 23 May 1991 on intervention in the agricultural            his arrival at Brussels airport on 9 March 2000, a taxi driver
sector. Article 48 of Regional Law No 32/91 provided for the            refused to drive him into the city centre. That refusal was
grant, during the three-year period from 1991 to 1993, of               attributable to the measures which the Portuguese Presidency
assistance with regard to the interest payable to credit insti-         had communicated to the Austrian Government in a statement
tutions and undertakings on operating loans granted for a               dated 31 January 2000 made on behalf of 14 Member States.
term not exceeding one year to traders established and carrying         The applicant maintains that those measures are contrary to
on business in Sicily at least 70 % of whose turnover was               Community law. He claims that the Commission, as the
accounted for by the sale of fruit and vegetables, including            guardian of the Treaties, was under an obligation to adopt
citrus fruits, outside the territory of the Region. Upon being          decisions in order to have those measures lifted. It unlawfully
notified of that measure, the Commission raised no objection            failed to do so.
to it.
In support of its claims, the applicant Region asserts, as its
principal plea, the existence in the present case of a misuse of
powers, infringement of Article 88(1) of the Treaty and
infringement of Article 253 of the Treaty by reason of the
absence of a proper statement of reasons, as well as violation          Action brought on 26 July 2000 by Nuno Antas de
of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations                      Campos against European Parliament
and of legal certainty. It points out in that regard that Article
6 of the 1995 Law is substantially the same as Article 48 of
the 1991 Law. According to the applicant, once a general aid                                     (Case T-194/00)
scheme has been approved, the Commission should not
undertake an examination of the individual elements of such                                      (2000/C 285/32)
aid. Consequently, in setting out the reasons for which
Article 6 of Law No 68/95 was to be regarded as a new aid
scheme, the Commission totally failed to consider the actual
scope of the provision, arriving at assessments which differed                            (Language of the case: Portuguese)
from and contradicted its previous decision approving the aid.
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                        the Court of First Instance on 26 July 2000 by Nuno Antas de
                                                                        Campos, residing in Lisbon, represented by Carlos Botelho
                                                                        Moniz, of the Lisbon Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- C 285/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.10.2000
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:             The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul the decision contained in document No 109172                  —      annul the Commission’s decision of 29 July 1999
      of 17 February 2000, notified to him by the President of                   imposing on him the penalty provided for in
      the European Parliament, rejecting his complaint against                   Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations of officials, namely
      the rejection of his request for definitive termination of                 removal from post with a one-third reduction in his
      service;                                                                   retirement pension entitlement;
—     Order the defendant to pay the applicant total compen-              —      annul the Commission’s decision refusing to re-open the
      sation of PTE 50 000 000 (PTE 25 000 000 for impair-                       disciplinary procedure;
      ment of his health and PTE 25 000 000 for damage to
      his good name and professional reputation);                         —      order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant, a Commission official, was assigned to the
                                                                          European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO). The Com-
The applicant’s action is directed against the decision contained         mission alleges that he committed serious administrative
in document No 109172 of 17 February 2000, notified to                    irregularities and that he is guilty of serious misconduct in
him by the President of the European Parliament, rejecting his            respect of budgetary and financial management. Following a
complaint against the rejection of his request for definitive             disciplinary procedure, the Commission adopted the contested
termination of service.                                                   decision imposing on the applicant the penalty of removal
                                                                          from post with a one-third reduction in his retirement pension
                                                                          entitlement.
The applicant claims that the contested measure:
                                                                          In support of his application, the applicant advances the
—     first, infringes the principle of sound administration by
                                                                          following pleas:
      which the Community institutions are bound;
                                                                          —      infringement of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as
—     second, infringes the principle of non-discrimination;                     the appointing authority did not observe the time-limit
                                                                                 laid down by the first paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX
—     third, contains an inconsistent statement of the reasons                   to the Staff Regulations of Officials, two members of the
      on which it is based, contrary to the requirements of                      appointing authority failed to show the objectivity and
      Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of the European                        impartiality required and the applicant was unable to put
      Communities.                                                               forward at the appropriate time the grounds of his
                                                                                 defence;
                                                                          —      a manifest error of assessment, inasmuch as the Com-
                                                                                 mission was not legally entitled to level a charge against
                                                                                 the applicant whilst at the same time taking the view that
                                                                                 the former director of ECHO, who was the applicant’s
                                                                                 direct hierarchical superior, had not failed in any way to
                                                                                 fulfil his obligations under the Staff Regulations;
Action brought on 26 July 2000 by Hubert Onidi against
       the Commission of the European Communities                         —      violation of the obligation to apply the principle of
                                                                                 proportionality, inasmuch as the appointing authority
                         (Case T-197/00)                                         failed to take into consideration the exonerating evidence
                                                                                 submitted by the applicant.
                         (2000/C 285/33)
                                                                          In addition, the applicant contests the Commission’s decision
                                                                          refusing to re-open the disciplinary procedure against him. He
                                                                          maintains that the decision of the College of Commissioners
                    (Language of the case: French)                        finding that the former director of ECHO had not failed to
                                                                          fulfil his obligations under the Staff Regulations constitutes a
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 material new fact justifying his request for the matter to be
                                                                          resubmitted to the Disciplinary Board.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 July 2000 by Hubert Onidi,
residing at Roquefort-les-Pins (France), represented by Jean-
Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.