CELEX: C2002/305/63
Language: en
Date: 2002-12-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-316/02: Action brought on 15 October 2002 by Marie-Claude Girardot against theCommission of the European Communities

C 305/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.12.2002
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:                          They claim that the Commission manifestly erred in fact and
                                                                          in law in finding that, with respect to anti-doping rules, the
—     the retroactive application of the contested decision               IOC is not an undertaking for the purposes of Community
      infringes the principles underlying recovery of sums                law. It is clear that the IOC cannot be treated in the same way
      overpaid and, in particular, Article 85 of the Staff                as a public institution providing social security services and
      Regulations as well as the principles of legitimate expec-          that it does not exercise the prerogatives of a public authority.
      tations and sound administration;                                   Moreover, the rules in question affect the conduct of all
                                                                          athletes on the market for the sports which the applicants
                                                                          perform.
—     for the purpose of Article 67 of the Staff Regulations, the
      orphan’s pension is not of like nature to the dependent
      child allowance. Therefore, the payments made by the
      administration until February 2002 were not manifestly              In addition, the applicants claim that the Commission commit-
      irregular; rather, it is the deductions under the contested         ted a manifest error of assessment in finding that, in the
      decision which are in point of fact irregular.                      present case, the limitation on the freedom of athletes is not a
                                                                          restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81
                                                                          EC, on the ground that such a limitation is inherent in the
                                                                          organisation and smooth running of competitive sport. The
                                                                          Commission’s findings constitute a manifest misapplication of
                                                                          the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice in paragraph 97
                                                                          of the judgment in Wouters ( 1) and the restrictive effects of the
                                                                          IOC rules in question are clearly not inherent in the pursuit of
                                                                          the praiseworthy aims of the campaign against doping.
Action brought on 11 October 2002 by David Meca-
                                                                          According to the applicants, it is for the Commission — in
Medina and Igor Majcen against the Commission of the                      accordance with the ‘necessity test’ and/or the ‘proportionality
                    European Communities
                                                                          test’ — to declare that a rule which has been proven to have
                                                                          no scientific basis can in no way satisfy the requirements of
                          (Case T-313/02)                                 such tests.
                         (2002/C 305/62)
                                                                          Finally, the Commission’s assessment is manifestly incorrect in
                                                                          so far as it fails to recognise Article 49 EC as having any direct
                   (Language of the case: French)                         horizontal effect. It must be found that, since they do not
                                                                          satisfy a ‘test of necessity’, the contested IOC rules also infringe
                                                                          Article 49 EC.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                (1 ) Case C-309/99 Wouters [2002] ECR I-1577.
European Communities on 11 October 2002 by David Meca-
Medina, residing in Barcelona (Spain), and Igor Majcen, residing
in Ljubljana (Slovenia), represented by J.-L. Dupont, lawyer.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision notified to the appli-
      cants on 5 August 2002 rejecting the complaint of                   Action brought on 15 October 2002 by Marie-Claude
      31 May 2001 against the International Olympic Com-                  Girardot against the Commission of the European Com-
      mittee;                                                                                             munities
                                                                                                    (Case T-316/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                    (2002/C 305/63)
By the contested decision, the Commission rejected the
complaint lodged by the applicants, who are professional                                       (Language of the case: French)
swimmers, that certain practices and rules of the International
Olympic Committee (IOC) concerning the fight against doping
were contrary to European competition law. The applicants
objected, in particular, to the fact that, in connection with the
detection of the substance nandrolone, the IOC continues to               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
apply a maximum level which has now been found to lack                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
scientific merit.                                                         European Communities on 15 October 2002 by Marie-Claude
 ---pagebreak--- 7.12.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 305/31
Girardot, residing at L’Haye les Roses (France), represented            temporary staff should not possess skills and abilities at least
by Eric Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for service in                equal to, if not superior to, those of candidates who are in the
Luxembourg.                                                             service of the institution only by virtue of their status as
                                                                        members of the temporary staff. Thus, the Commission was
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             not in a position to show that the exclusion of a candidate
                                                                        who has been a national expert on secondment prior to
—     annul the decisions of the selection board of 5 and 30 July       becoming a member of the temporary staff can be justified in
      2001 to exclude from consideration the application of             the interests of the service.
      the applicant in internal competition COM/R/502211/
      2001, as advertised in the combined notice of vacancies           In support of her action, the applicant also pleads:
      and of internal competitions of 28 May 2001;
                                                                        —     infringement of the first paragraph of Article 27 of the
—     annul the decision expressly rejecting the applicant’s                  Staff Regulations;
      complaint, the said complaint having been lodged on
      29 January 2002 and rejected by an express decision               —     infringement of the general principle of equality of
      receipt of which was acknowledged by the applicant on                   treatment;
      15 July 2002;
                                                                        —     infringement of the general principle that all administrat-
—     order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.                      ive decisions must be based on legally valid reasons;
                                                                        —     infringement of the first paragraph of Article 4 and the
                                                                              first paragraph of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant entered the service of the Commission on
1 February 1996. She initially worked there as a national
expert on secondment and subsequently as a member of the
temporary staff. She applied to take part in internal compe-                    Removal from the register of Case T-116/02 (1)
tition COM/R/502211/2001 for the recruitment of officials.
According to information received by her, the selection board                                    (2002/C 305/64)
for that competition found that, as at 1 January 2001, she had
not completed five years’ service as a member of the temporary                             (Language of the case: French)
staff, so that her name could not be included in the list of
candidates admitted to the tests.
                                                                        By order of 10 September 2002 the President of the Fifth
The applicant contests that rejection. She argues that account          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
should also have been taken of the period during which she              Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                        T-116/02: Antonio Aresu v Commission of the European
was in the Commission’s service as a national expert on
secondment. There is nothing to suggest, prima facie, that a            Communities.
candidate in an internal competition who has been a national
expert on secondment prior to being a member of the                     (1 ) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.