CELEX: C2000/247/61
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-165/00: Action brought on 19 June 2000 by Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) against the Commission of the European Communities

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.
 ---pagebreak--- 26.8.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/35
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Commission. In those circumstances, the choice of recruitment
                                                                          procedure was not determined in accordance with the interests
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case               of the service.
T-107/00 Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi v Commission (1).
                                                                          The applicant further claims that, since he had been eligible
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
                                                                          for promotion to grade A4 since 1 April 1998, the contested
                                                                          decision of 13 December 1999, appointing him to the post
                                                                          which he had been occupying for over two years, necessarily
                                                                          removed the obligation to consider the possibility of promot-
                                                                          ing him.
Action brought on 19 June 2000 by Peter Hirschfeldt
         against the European Environment Agency
                          (Case T-166/00)
                                                                          Action brought on 19 June 2000 by ‘D’ against the
                         (2000/C 247/62)                                           Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                   (Case T-167/00)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Environment Agency was                                              (2000/C 247/63)
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 19 June 2000 by Peter Hirschfeldt, residing
in Copenhagen, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique                                  (Language of the case: French)
Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 19 June 2000 by ‘D’, residing in
—     annul the decision to annul internal competition                    Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique
      EEA/T/99/1, notified to the applicant by letter of 27 Sep-          Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
      tember 1999;
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of 13 December 1999 concerning the
      transfer of the applicant from the Commission to the
                                                                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 20 August 1999
      European Environment Agency, inasmuch as it classifies
                                                                                refusing to recognise his civil status as a party to a ‘stable
      him in step 3 of grade A5 with effect from 1 November
                                                                                homosexual union’ and to grant him and his partner all
      1999;
                                                                                the resulting entitlements including, in particular, cover
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     under the Joint Sickness and Accident Insurance Scheme,
                                                                                the benefit of the household allowance and the rights
                                                                                conferred by the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 including the right not to be subject to immigration
                                                                                restrictions or to formalities for the registration of aliens;
The applicant pleads as follows in opposition to the contested
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
decisions:
—     infringement of Articles 8, 45 and 27 of the Staff
      Regulations;                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     infringement of Article 5 of the Staff Regulations and of           The applicant, a Commission official, concluded with a partner
      the principle of equal treatment;                                   of the same sex, in accordance with the Catalan Law of
                                                                          15 July 1998, a solemn partnership agreement (‘unión estable
—     a misuse of powers in the present case.                             homosexual’). According to the applicant, that agreement
                                                                          creates reciprocal rights and obligations on the part of the
According to the applicant, the annulment of competition                  partners, including in particular the obligation to contribute to
EEA/T/99/1 was decided upon in consequence of an inter-                   household expenses and joint expenditure. The applicant
institutional agreement between the Commission and the                    subsequently submitted a request for recognition of his civil
defendant Agency, according to which a transfer procedure                 status as a party to a ‘unión estable homosexual’ and for the
was chosen in preference to a competition, with a view to                 grant of the household allowance. By the contested decision,
avoiding the risk of the applicant being established in the               the Commission classified the applicant as an unmarried
Agency whilst at the same time retaining his post in the                  person and refused to grant him a household allowance.