CELEX: C1997/108/43
Language: en
Date: 1997-04-05 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 27 January 1997 by Viglienzone Adriatica SpA against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-17/97)

5 . 4 . 97          I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 108/21
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                             Action brought on 27 January 1997 by Viglienzone
                                                                       Adriatica SpA against Commission of the European
                                                                                                 Communities
 (') OJ No C 146, 28 . 5 . 1994, p. 13 ,
     OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994, p . 22 .                                                    ( Case T-17/97 )
                                                                                                ( 97/C 108/43
                                                                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 16 January 1997 by Miguel Vicente­                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Nunez against the Commission of the European                           Instance on 27 January 1997 by Viglienzone Adriatica
                             Communities
                                                                       SpA, represented by Bruno Elia and Ivano Vigliotti, of the
                            ( Case T-7/97)                             Genoa Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                       the chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume .
                            ( 97/C 108/42 )
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
                (Language of the case: French)                         should :
                                                                       — annul, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 173
An action against the Commission of the European                           of the EC Treaty, the finding by which the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                          Commission, on 11 November 1996 , rejected
Instance of the European Communities on 16 January
                                                                           Viglienzone Adriatica SpA's application for
1997 by Miguel Vicente-Nunez, residing at Krainem                          prequalification for call for tenders No 96/C 177/08
( Belgium ), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege                concerning the control of food aid,
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau.
                                                                       — if necessary, annul or in any event declare
                                                                           inapplicable, under Article 184 of the EC Treaty,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                point 10, paragraph ( c ) (4 ) (in so far as it relates to
                                                                           the list of subsidiaries in the Member States of the
                                                                           European Union ) and the first sentence of the third
— annul the decision of the Commission of 22 March                         paragraph of point 12 ( in so far as it excludes the
      1996 , addressed to the applicant on 27 March and                    possibility of challenging decisions of the scrutiny
      received on 28 March, inasmuch as it rejected his                    committee ) of notice of tender No 96/C 177/08
      request of November 1995 to be reclassified in                       concerning 'European Union food aid/food security'
      another grade on the basis of Article 31 ( 2 ) of the                and 'prequalification of firms for participation in the
      Staff Regulations,                                                   forthcoming restricted invitation to tender for the
                                                                           provision of services relating to the coordination of
                                                                           consignments and quality and quantity control of
— annul in so far as necessary the decision of the                         foodstuffs, supplies as food aid',
      Commission of 16 October rejecting the complaint
      lodged by the applicant on 27 June 1996 against that
      decision,                                                        — adopt any other measure considered necessary,
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs .
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       The applicant is an company whose application for
                                                                       prequalification for the purposes of notice of tender No 96/
The applicant, an official in Grade A 6, Step 2, relies on             C 177/08 concerning 'European Union food aid/food
the same plea in law as in the action which he brought                 security' and 'prequalification of firms for participation in
against the Commission of the European Communities on                  the forthcoming restricted invitation to tender for the
27 June 1996 (T-100/96 ), alleging that Article 32 of the              provision of services relating to the coordination of
Staff Regulations and the sixth and eighth paragraphs of               consignments and quality and quantity control of
Article 2 of the Commission's decision of 1 September                  foodstuffs, supplies as food aid' ( J ) was rejected.
1983 have been infringed and that the principle of equal
treatment has been breached. According to the applicant,
the Commission has, moreover, disregarded the level and                In support of its claims, the applicant alleges, first,
extent of his experience prior to his joining the                      infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty. It states that the
Commission .                                                           duty to state reasons is particularly important in the case
                                                                       of measures which affect the legal position of the
                                                                       addressees, and that the contested measure has a
                                                                       considerable legal impact on Viglienzone, in so far as it
 ---pagebreak--- No C 108/22           EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    5 . 4 . 97
excludes it from the procedure and consequently from the                — order the defendant to pay the costs .
conclusion of renewable four-year contracts in private
tendering procedures ( involving for the first four-year                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
period a sum of at least ECU 18 million); in other words,
once the contracts are concluded, they are capable of                   The applicant, who was engaged on 1 December 1994 as
excluding for an indefinite period, as regards those not                a member of the temporary staff in Grade B 3 at the
allowed to participate, the possibility of gaining access to            Commission, challenges the decision to impose on her the
the sector or of continuing to operate in it.                           disciplinary measure of termination of her employment
                                                                        without notice, provided for in Article 50 ( 1 ) of the
The applicant also claims that any purported imposition                 Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the
of the condition, for admission to competitive bidding for
                                                                        European Communities ( CEOS ), on the ground that she
the supply of services, that candidates must have a                     had furnished false information as to her qualifications.
subsidiary in Community countries other than that in
which they are established infringes the Community rules
on services and contracts. The applicant states that, at a              The applicant alleges, in the first place, infringement of
meeting with DG VIII, the Director made it clear that, in               Articles 12 and 50 of the CEOS and the third paragraph
adopting the contested decision, importance had been                    of Article 5 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations and a manifest
attached to the fact that the applicant had not indicated in            error of assessment. She points out, in this regard, that she
its application that it had ' branch offices' in Community              fulfils the general and particular qualifications required by
countries. In so far as that requirement may be a                       the vacancy notice even if she did not possess, as she had
manifestation of a new Commission policy, the applicant                 stated in her application form, a secondary school
considers that participation in a tendering procedure for               diploma. The applicant points out that she holds a
the award of a contract cannot have applied to them a                   university degree in the specific field mentioned in the
policy adopted by a Commission department which is not                  vacancy notice and can show evidence of professional
clearly set out in the notice of tender.                                experience in excess of the minimum required. She
                                                                        therefore concludes that the inaccurate information which
In any event, the applicant considers that a European                   she furnished in her application form did not mislead the
Economic Interest Grouping or a ' dependency thereof in                 Administration as to her professional abilities and that,
which an undertaking has a holding' cannot be regarded                  accordingly, it could not have been a determining factor in
as a subsidiary of that undertaking. It states in that                  her being employed , as the defendant maintains .
connection that, from informal contacts with other firms
participating in the procedure and from information                     The applicant claims, moreover, that the authority
obtained from those responsible for the sector, it has                  empowered to conclude contracts of employment cannot
emerged that a number of those prequalified were selected               terminate her contract on the ground that a diploma is
on the basis that they had met the requirement of what                  missing, since it is not competent to verify the conditions
DG VIII has defined as ' branch offices' by setting up a                governing access to the selection procedure for temporary
grouping of that kind shortly before submitting their                   staff.
applications.
(') OJ No C 177, 20 . 6 . 1996 , p . 9 .
                                                                        Action brought on 6 February 1997 by Antillean Rice
                                                                        Mills NV against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                  Communities
Action brought on 30 January 1997 by Sofia Goycoolea
   against the Commission of the European Communities                                           ( Case T-26/97 )
                          ( Case T-21/97)                                                         97/C 108/45 )
                           ( 97/C 108/44
                                                                                        (Language of the case: Dutch)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
 An action against the Commission of the European                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                       Instance of the European Communities on 6 February
 Instance of the European Communities on 30 January                      1997 by Antillean Rice Mills NV, Bonaire (Netherlands),
 1997 by Sofia Goycoolea, residing at Brussels, represented              represented by W. Knibbeler and K. J. Defares, of the
 by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel                 Amsterdam and Rotterdam Bars respectively, with an
 of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of N.
 Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de                          Loesch, 1 1 Rue Goethe .
 Cessange .
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                            The applicant claims that the Court should :
 — annul     the    decision     of      the Director-General   of       — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 21 /97 of
     Personnel and Administration of 7 May 1996                               8 January 1997 introducing safeguard measures in
     terminating the applicant's contract as a member of                      respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas
     the temporary staff on 1 September 1996 ,                                countries and territories P ),