CELEX: C2000/247/59
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-163/00: Action brought on 16 June 2000 by Rosemarie Carotti against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities

26.8.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 247/33
      the control of abuses of cartel law pursuant to Article 82           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      EC. However, such monitoring of conduct has no
      additional value whatever, in terms of the promotion of              —     annul the implicit decision of the Commission rejecting
      competition, as a counter- balance to the tolerated                        the complaint lodged by the applicant under Article 90(2)
      dominance of the market. More wide-reaching commit-                        of the Staff Regulations against the list of officials
      ments, as demanded by the applicant in the course of the                   promoted to grade A 4, published in ‘Administrative
      procedure, have not been given by the parties to the                       Notices’ No 1080 of 13 August 1999, inasmuch as his
      proposed concentration.                                                    name did not appear on that list;
—     In addition, the Commission acted incorrectly from a                 —     consequently, rule that the 1999 procedure for pro-
      procedural point of view. Although significant reser-                      motion to grade A 4 is annulled as regards the applicant;
      vations were expressed in the decision as regards the
      compatibility of the proposed concentration with the                 —     order the defendant to pay compensation of 5 000 euros
      common market, the Commission granted its approval,                        for non-material damage;
      on the basis of wide-ranging and partly unverifiable
      commitments offered by the parties seeking that                      —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
      approval, as early on as the initial examination stage. Had
      it acted correctly, however, proceedings should have been
      initiated in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger           Pleas in law and main arguments
      Regulation.
                                                                           In support of his action, the applicant pleads:
—     Lastly, the Commission unlawfully failed to comply
      with the procedural rule laid down in Article 18(1) of               —     the total absence of any statement of reasons for the
      Commission Regulation (EC) No 447/98 (1), in that, even                    contested decision and infringement of Article 25(2) of
      after the expiry of the three-week time-limit prescribed in                the Staff Regulations of officials;
      that provision, it constantly had regard to further, altered
      commitments offered by the parties to the proposed
                                                                           —     infringement of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations and
      concentration. This infringed the procedural rights of the
                                                                                 manifest error of assessment.
      applicant in particular, since the applicant was required
      to adopt a position within time-limits which became
      ever shorter, and ultimately had scarcely any further
      opportunity to express its views.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 447/98 of 1 March 1998 on the
    notifications, time limits and hearings provided for in Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations           Action brought on 16 June 2000 by Rosemarie Carotti
    between undertakings (OJ 1998 L 61, p. 1).                             against the Court of Auditors of the European Communi-
                                                                                                          ties
                                                                                                   (Case T-163/00)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 247/59)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 14 June 2000 by Vassilios Tsarnavas
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
                                                                           Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
                          (Case T-161/00)                                  of the European Communities on 16 June 2000 by Rosemarie
                                                                           Carotti, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Gaston Vogel
                                                                           and Ferdinand Burg, of the Luxembourg Bar.
                          (2000/C 247/58)
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           —     annul the decision of 15 May 2000;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  —     order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 June 2000 by Vassilios Tsarna-                  —     order the Court of Auditors to pay to Ms Carotti the sum
vas, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the                 of LFR 50 000, constituting the expenses which she has
Brussels Bar.                                                                    had to incur in order to succeed with her case.
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/34               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26.8.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     award the applicant the sum of 25 000 euros, or such
                                                                                greater or lesser sum as may be determined in the course
The applicant in the present case contests the decision of her                  of the proceedings, by way of compensation for his
immediate superior relieving her from the position of team                      having been rejected for that vacant post and, therefore,
leader in the Italian translation section.                                      the loss of a chance of promotion;
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
In support of her claim, she puts forward the following pleas:
—     her immediate superior was not competent to adopt the               Pleas in law and main arguments
      contested measure, inasmuch as her appointment as team
      leader had been decided on by the Director of Translation
      himself;                                                            The applicant contests the rejection of his application for the
                                                                          post of Head of Unit, corresponding to Vacancy Notice
—     breach of essential procedural requirements, inasmuch as            COM/091/99 IV/E/2 ‘Basic industries’.
      the Staff Regulations Committee was not consulted;
                                                                          In support of his claim, the applicant pleads:
—     infringement of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as
      the applicant was not given an opportunity to express a             —     infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and of
      view before the contested measure was adopted;                            the obligation to state reasons;
—     breach of the obligation to state the reasons for measures.         —     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, of the
                                                                                promotions procedure and of the principle of equal
                                                                                treatment;
                                                                          —     infringement of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                          —     the existence in the present case of a manifest error of
                                                                                assessment and misuse of powers.
Action brought on 16 June 2000 by Carmelo Morello
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-164/00)
                         (2000/C 247/60)
                                                                          Action brought on 19 June 2000 by Consorzio Industrie
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Fiammiferi (CIF) against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                     Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 16 June                                     (Case T-165/00)
2000 by Carmelo Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by
Jacques Sambon and Pierre Paul van Gehuchten, of the Brussels                                      (2000/C 247/61)
Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
—     annul the Commission’s decision to appoint another
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      official to post COM/091/99 IV/E/2 ‘Basic industries’,
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      corresponding to an A5/A4 Head of Unit post;
                                                                          European Communities on 19 June 2000 by, Consorzio
                                                                          Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF), represented by Antonio Tizzano
—     annul the decision not to accept the applicant’s appli-             and Gian Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar.
      cation for post COM/091/99 IV/E/2, being a Head of Unit
      post;
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     award the applicant the sum of 100 000 euros, or such
      greater or lesser sum as may be determined in the course            —     annul the decision of the European Commission con-
      of the proceedings, by way of compensation for the non-                   tained in the letter from the Secretariat General of 7 April
      material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of                  2000, refusing access to certain documents concerning
      the inappropriate or incomplete information compiled                      Commission proceedings in relation to the system of
      by the defendant in relation to the applicant’s individual                production and sale of matches in Italy;
      file, and the state of uncertainty and anxiety in which he
      has found himself regarding his professional future;                —     order the Commission to pay the costs.