CELEX: C1999/352/64
Language: en
Date: 1999-12-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-209/99: Action brought on 17 September 1999 by P.E. Hoyer against the Commission of the European Communities

C 352/36                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.12.1999
        — any rise or fall in the guaranteed price referred to in           residing at Hoeilaart (Belgium), represented by G. van der Wal,
             Article 5(4) of Protocol No 8 to the Fourth ACP-EC             of the Hague Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
             Convention, signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989;                at the Chambers of A. May.
        For the purposes of reducing or increasing the amount of            The applicant claims that the Court should:
        security to be lodged reference shall be made to the
        intervention price or the guaranteed price for 31 October           — declare the present application admissible;
        1999;
                                                                            — annul the defendant’s decision of 15 July 1999;
    — the security lodged shall be released in full, by Order of the
        Court hearing the application for interim relief, in favour of      — grant the applicant’s claim for damages and order the
        the Community, should the Court of Justice, in its forth-                 defendant to pay the applicant the sum of BEF 7 323 594,
        coming judgment in Case C-17/98, declare during the                       alternatively such sum as the Court shall consider fair and
        period between 31 October 1999 and 29 February 2000                       reasonable;
        that Article 108b is not invalid;
                                                                            — order the defendant to pay the costs.
    — for the duration of the interim measure so ordered, Emesa
        Sugar (Free Zone) NV may not submit any application for
        an import licence pursuant to Regulation No 2553/97.                Pleas in law and main arguments
3. In the event that the Court of Justice delivers its judgment in Case
    C-17/98 during the period between 31 October 1999 and                   The applicant, who was at the material time a member of
    29 February 2000:                                                       the temporary staff (interpreter) of the Commission, was
                                                                            unsuccessful in competition COM/LA/2/89 and was dismissed.
    — the present proceedings for interim relief (registered as Case
        T-44/98 R II) shall recommence should the Court of Justice          His application contesting the decision of the selection board
        hold that Article 108b of Decision 91/482 is not invalid,           was upheld (Case T-43/91). The decision dismissing him was
        and the parties shall be called upon to make known their            annulled on the ground that it was based on an unlawful
        views on the judgment of the Court of Justice; the decision of      decision of the selection board (Case T-51/91).
        the Court hearing the application for interim relief in the
        present proceedings shall be embodied in a new Order, it            The Court of First Instance did not declare the competition
        being indicated that Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV may                 void as such, but in paragraph 65 of its judgment in Case
        continue to import into the Community sugar which has               T-43/91 it stated that the applicant’s rights would be
        been delivered to it free on board (FOB) before the date of         adequately protected ‘if the institution seeks a just solution in
        delivery of the judgment of the Court of Justice (i) subject to     his case’.
        a ceiling of 7 500 tonnes (ii) within the period expiring on
        29 February 2000 and (iii) in conformity with the conditions
        set out in the second paragraph of the operative part of the        In consequence of the decision dismissing him, which was
        present Order;                                                      annulled by the Court of First Instance, the applicant has
                                                                            suffered material and non-material damage. By letter of 28 May
    — the present Order shall continue to produce its effects until         1998 the applicant’s lawyer pointed out that agreement had
        29 February 2000 should the Court of Justice hold that              still not been reached between the applicant and the defendant
        Article 108b of Decision 91/482 is invalid and should the           concerning, inter alia, that issue, and requested the defendant
        Court of First Instance have failed by that date to give            in that connection to adopt a decision pursuant to Article 90(1)
        judgment in the main proceedings (registered as Case                of the Staff Regulations of Officials.
        T-44/98).
                                                                            By letter of 1 October 1998 the defendant adopted the same
4. Costs are reserved.                                                      position as before. Consequently, by letter of 31 December
                                                                            1998, the applicant submitted a complaint pursuant to
                                                                            Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. The defendant rejected
                                                                            that complaint by letter of 15 July 1999.
                                                                            As a result of the aforesaid judgments of the Court of
                                                                            First Instance of 17 March 1994, a process of negotiation
Action brought on 17 September 1999 by P.E. Hoyer                           commenced between the parties, from which the defendant
  against the Commission of the European Communities                        has unilaterally withdrawn with regard to numerous points; it
                                                                            is now purporting to describe that unilateral withdrawal as an
                          (Case T-209/99)                                   ‘act adversely affecting’ the applicant, and is seeking to rely on
                                                                            it in order to show that the claim brought in the present
                                                                            proceedings concerns a ‘new application’, so that the applicant
                          (1999/C 352/64)                                   is out of time with his claim for compensation. According to
                                                                            the applicant, the defendant is unlawfully attempting to evade
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                           its obligation to pay compensation for the damage suffered by
                                                                            him as a result of the decisions annulled in Cases T-43/91 and
                                                                            T-51/91.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 September 1999 by P.E. Hoyer,