CELEX: C1997/271/31
Language: en
Date: 1997-09-06 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 19 June 1997 by Carla Micheli, Andrea Peirano, Carlo Nike Bianchi and Marinella Abbate against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-183/97)

C 271/18              1 EN I                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    6 . 9 . 97
Action brought on 13 June 1997 by Maurizio Munaro                        Roques, of the Val de Marne Bar, with an address for
   against the Commission of the European Communities                    service at 9 Rue du Général de Larminat, Créteil (France ).
                          ( Case T-180/97)
                            ( 97/C 271 /29 )                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                 (Language of the case: French)                          — annul the letter of the Secretary General of the
                                                                             Commission of 21 May 1997.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Instance of the European Communities on 13 June 1997
by Maurizio Munaro, residing in Boussu ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an              The applicants challenge the decision of the Commission
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                      not to take action on their complaint, concerning the
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.                               alleged failure of the French authorities to fulfil their
                                                                         obligations under Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                         without examining certain documents which they consider
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             to be essential to prove the infringements complained of.
                                                                         In support of their action for annulment, they plead
                                                                         manifest and serious failure to observe :
— annul the Commission's decision of 12 August 19 96
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                        — the fundamental rights recognized under the European
     Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                               Convention on Human Rights,
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                     — the status of res judicata of the judgment delivered by
     adopted by the Commission on 3 February 1997,                           the Court of Justice on 14 July 1988 in Case 298/87,
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                         — the settled case-law concerning the principles of the
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                                  liability of Member States for the whole of the harm
                                                                             caused to an individual by breaches of Community
                                                                             law for which they are responsible, and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         — the principle of equality of arms, which would militate
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                     against the Commission's being able to exclude from
relied upon in Case T- 16/97 ( J ).                                          proceedings a number of documents which are
                                                                             essential in order to restore the rights of the parties in
                                                                             question .
(') OJ C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                         Action brought on 19 June 1997 by Carla Micheli,
Action brought on 17 June 1997 by Smanor SA, Hubert                      Andrea Peirano, Carlo Nike Bianchi and Marinella
Segaud and Monique Segaud against the Commission of                      Abbate     against the     Commission of the European
                    the European Communities                                                      Communities
                          ( Case T-l 82/97 )                                                   ( Case T-183 /97 )
                             ( 97/C 271 /30 )                                                    ( 97/C 271 /31
                 (Language of the case: French)                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
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 17 June 1997                     Instance of the European Communities on 19 June 1997
by Smanor SA, established in Saint Martin d'Ecublei                      by Carla Micheli, Andrea Peirano, Carlo Nike Bianchi and
( France ), Hubert Segaud and Monique Segaud, residing at                Marinella Abbate, represented by Wilma Viscardini Dona,
Saint Martin d'Ecublei ( France ), represented by Laurence               Mariano Paolin and Simonetta Dona, of the Padua Bar,
 ---pagebreak---  6 . 9 . 97          I EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 271 / 19
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     provided additional information on the procedure
 Chambers of Ernst Arendt, Rue Mathias Hardt.                        followed, stating that the Management Committee had
                                                                     examined a 'short list', consisting of a 'main list' and a
                                                                      'reserve list', which the Commission had itself submitted.
                                                                     This Committee had approved the reduction in the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                          projects originally included on the 'reserve list' for Area A.
                                                                     The removal of five projects from the 'reserve list' had
                                                                     related to those with lower marks .
— annul the decision relating to the approval of the
      projects admitted for Community financing or
      considered capable of being financed within the
      context of the specific programme of research and
      technological development, including demonstration,            In support of their submissions, the applicants contend in
      in the field of 'marine science and technology' ( 1994         particular that the procedure followed by the Commission
      to 1998 ), and consequently annul the decision to              constituted an abuse of power and breach of the principle
      exclude the Posible project coordinated by Carla               of non-discrimination. They stress in this connection that
      Micheli, which decision was notified by the                    it is clear from a consideration of the evaluations carried
      Commission 's services by letter of 26 March 1997,             out for all the different phases that a project entitled
      received by fax on 17 April 1997 and by post on                Aosge, submitted for Area A, was evaluated twice, even
      20 May 1997,                                                   though it is evident that projects which had failed to
                                                                     obtain the minimum mark necessary to continue to the
                                                                     subsequent stage could not be allowed to be 'resubmitted '.
                                                                     However, because of this repeated examination, the Aosge
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the                       project was able to obtain a mark enabling it to be
      proceedings.                                                   included on the final list even though it . had received a
                                                                     lower mark than other projects, including the Posible
                                                                     project.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicants, all of whom are researchers with the Ente            The applicants further argue that there has been a breach
per le Nuove Tecnologie, l'Energia e l'Ambiente ( Institute          of the obligation to state reasons and infringement of the
for New Technologies, Energy and the Environment ),                  principle of transparency in so far as the draft decision
contest the manner in which the defendant rejected the               does not contain the minimum information necessary to
project which they had submitted in connection with the              explain ( i ) why funds for one area were used to finance
specific programme of research and technological                     projects in other areas, thereby excluding a number of
development, including demonstration, in the field of                projects which had achieved significant results, as in the
marine science and technology ( MAST III), adopted                   case of Posible, ( ii ) why some projects, benefiting from an
pursuant to Council Decision 94/804/EC of 23 November                allocation of funds which differed from that indicated in
 1994 ('). It should be noted in this regard that Decision           the Council decision, were able to be included on the
94/804 establishes four separate areas of research ( A:              'main list' even though they had received lower marks
marine science; B: strategic marine research; C : marine             than other projects in another area ( for Area B and, in
technology; D : supporting initiatives ), allocating to each a       particular, Area C, projects were included on the 'main
specified amount in ecus . With regard to the detailed               list' which appreciably exceeded the funds available for
implementation of the activities thus set out, the                   those areas ), and ( iii ) why the Aosge project was evaluated
decision confers on the Commission responsibility for                twice and included on the final list, to the detriment of
implementing the MAST III programme, with the                        other projects, even though it has secured a lower mark.
assistance of a committee of representatives from the
Member States .
                                                                     It is also contended that there has been a breach of the
The project submitted by the applicants, entitled Posible,           above Council decision of 23 November 1994 inasmuch
consisted in the study of ecosystems in the Mediterranean            as, in the draft decision submitted to the Commission for
Sea and is, of those submitted, the only one which
                                                                     the 'written procedure', funds were transferred from one
involves a research study into Posidonia oceanica
                                                                     area to another, contrary to the provisional allocation of
( Sector A ).
                                                                     the available sums intended by the Council .
According to the Commission, the project was rejected on
the ground that it was necessary to select a reduced
number of projects in the light of the finances available to         The applicants conclude by claiming that' there has been a
it. The applicants point out that the Italian Ministry for           breach of the principle of objectivity and independence in
Universities and Scientific and Technological Research               so far as the list of those who attended the Committee
 ---pagebreak--- C 271 /20             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   6 . 9 . 97
meeting at which the measures proposed by the                           The applicants are of the view that they are representative
Commission's services were discussed and, presumably,                   organizations and recognized workers' representatives for
voted on indicates that those present included not only                 the purposes of French law and, accordingly, able to
representatives of the Ministries but also representatives of           defend the interests of the undertaking's workers.
research institutes with an interest in receiving financing.
                                                                        They maintain that the contested decision is vitiated by a
O OJ L 334, 22 . 12 . 1994, p . 59 .
                                                                        defective statement of reasons, inadequate description, an
                                                                        error of fact and by misuse of powers, inasmuch as they
                                                                        describe the payments as aid and, in the alternative,
                                                                        inasmuch as they describe them as aid as a whole and
                                                                        without distinction .
Action brought on 24 June 1997 by Comité d'Entreprise                   The decision does not provide an adequate statement of
de la Société Française de Production and Others against                reasons or grounds as regards trade between Member
       the Commission of the European Communities                       States being affected within the meaning of Article 92 ( 1 )
                         ( Case T-l 89/97)                              of the EC Treaty.
                           ( 97/C 271 /32 )
                                                                        In the alternative and in the event that the description as
                                                                        aid is upheld, the applicants claim that it is very difficult
                (Language of the case: French)                          to read the contested decision with respect to whether, in
                                                                        the light of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty, the
                                                                        payments in issue are lawful, since most of its reasons are
An action against the Commission of the European                        considered to be confidential . With regard to whether, in
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       the light of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( d ) of the EC Treaty, the
Instance of the European Communities on 24 June 1997                    payments in issue are lawful, the decision is contradictory
by the Comite d'Entreprise de la Societe Fran^aise de                   and again gives an inadequate statement of reasons .
Production, whose registered office is at Bry-sur-Marne
( France ), the Syndicat National de Radio-Diffusion et de
Television SNRT-CGT, the Syndicat Unifie de Radio et de                 Finally, the applicants state that the contested decision is
Television SURT-CFDT, the Syndicat National Force                       based exclusively on criteria of an economic nature
Ouvriere de Radio-Diffusion et de Television and the                    comparing operating costs without taking account of the
Syndicat National de l'Encadrement Audiovisuel SNEA­                    social and cultural impact of the decisions taken.
CFE-CGC, all having their registered offices in Paris,                  According to the case-law of the Court, the Commission
represented by Helene Masse-Dessen, Avocat at the                       should have, at the very least, examined such criteria .
Conseil d'Etat and at the Cour de Cassation, Paris, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 (') OJ L 95 , 10 . 4 . 1997, p . 19 .
Guy Thomas, 77 Boulevard de la Grande-Duchesse
Charlotte .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Action brought on 30 June 1997 by Jean-Francois
— annul the contested decision,                                         Aguinaga and others against the Commission of the
                                                                                               European Communities
— order the Commission to pay the costs and, pursuant                                              ( Case T-199/97 )
     to Article 87 ( 3 ) and 91b of the Rules of Procedure,                                           97/C 271 /33 )
     order it to pay each of the applicants the equivalent of
     ECU 20 000 in French francs .
                                                                                          (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
The     contested     decision       declared    unlawful     and       Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 1997
incompatible with the common market aid amounting to                    by Jean-Francois Aguinaga, residing in Brussels, Robert
FF 1,110 billion, granted during the period from 1993 to                Donkers, residing at Hoeilaart ( Belgium ) and Patricia
1996 to the Societe de Production Audiovisuelle, a French               Mauguin, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas
production company, on the ground that it was allocated                 Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
in breach of the procedure provided for in Article 93 ( 3 )             Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
of the EC Treaty (').                                                   Rue de Cessange .