CELEX: C2002/109/126
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-66/02: Action brought on 25 February 2002 by 1. Idiotiko Institouto Epangelmatikis Katartisis, South Avyerinopoulou — Anagnorismenes Technikes Idiotikes Epangelmatikes Skholes; 2. Panellinias Enosis Idiotikon Institouton Epangelmatikis Katartisis; and 3. Idiotikis Teknikis Epangelmatikis Ekpaideusis kai Katartisis, against the Commission of the European Communities

4.5.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/67
Action brought on 4 March 2002 by Michelle Boisset-                       However, by referring to a notice determining rights to an
            Chetaud against European Parliament                           invalidity pension issued by the head of division in Directorate
                                                                          General V — Personnel, the appointing authority took as the
                                                                          sole criterion that of residence.
                          (Case T-65/02)
                        (2002/C 109/125)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Action brought on 25 February 2002 by 1. Idiotiko
                                                                          Institouto Epangelmatikis Katartisis, South Avyerinopou-
An action against the European Parliament was brought before              lou — Anagnorismenes Technikes Idiotikes Epangelma-
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                tikes Skholes; 2. Panellinias Enosis Idiotikon Institouton
4 March 2002 by Michelle Boisset-Chetaud, residing in Nice                Epangelmatikis Katartisis; and 3. Idiotikis Teknikis Epan-
(France), represented by Laurent Mosar, lawyer, with an address           gelmatikis Ekpaideusis kai Katartisis, against the Com-
for service in Luxembourg.                                                            mission of the European Communities
                                                                                                    (Case T-66/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                  (2002/C 109/126)
—     Annul the decision following from the letter of 27 June
      2001 by which the European Parliament suspended the
      application of the weighting for France from 1 June 2001                                (Language of the case: Greek)
      until the production of documents showing unambigu-
      ously that Michelle Boisset-Chetaud’s centre of interests is
      in Nice;
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     Annul the decision of the Secretary General of the                  ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      European Parliament in a letter of 6 December 2001, in              Communities on 25 February 2002 by 1. Idiotiko Institouto
      response to the applicant’s complaint, that following that          Epangelmatikis Katartisis (Private institute for occupational
      decision the documents produced by Michelle Boisset-                training), South Avyerinopoulou — Anagnorismenes Technik-
      Chetaud did not allow the head of the Social Affairs                es Idiotikes Epangelmatikes Skholes (Accredited private techni-
      Division to consider that she had established her centre            cal training schools); 2. Panellinias Enosis Idiotikon Institouton
      of interests, and hence the place where she is deemed to            Epangelmatikis Katartisis (Panhellenic Association of private
      incur expenditure, in Nice.                                         institutions for occupational training); 3. Idiotikis Teknikis
                                                                          Epangelmatikis Ekpaideusis kai Katartisis (Panhellenic Associ-
                                                                          ation of private technical education and training).
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          —     uphold the application for a declaration of the failure by
The applicant in this case contests the refusal of the appointing               the Commission of the European Communities to bring
authority to consider that her centre of interests is in Nice and               to an end the unlawful distinction between private and
that the weighting for France should therefore be applied to                    public bodies engaged in occupational training as regards
her retirement pension.                                                         the exclusive funding of the latter under the 3rd commun-
                                                                                ity support network and, in particular, under the oper-
                                                                                ational programme concerning education and initial
In support of her application, she submits that there has been                  occupational training (II).
a breach of Article 82 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant
asserts that the concept of residence mentioned there has been
the subject of judicial interpretation intended to establish that
a person sets up a permanent and habitual centre at the place
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
where he resides. In assessing the criteria for residence, the
defendant must rely on objective elements such as a certificate
of residence. In this respect, the applicant submitted not only           —     Infringement of Article 87 EC: the proposed exclusive
a certificate of residence but also numerous other documents,                   funding of public occupational-training bodies consti-
such as the notarial act concerning the purchase of a flat, a                   tutes State (and Community) aid which does not concern
notice of change of address, and various bills.                                 general measures nor is justified by the actual require-
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/68             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.5.2002
     ments of public education. Such one-sided funding                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
     distorts competition and affects trade between the Mem-
     ber States.                                                         —     annul the Commission’s first refusal of access to docu-
                                                                               ments communicated to the applicant by letter of
—    Infringement of the principle of equality under Article 12                19       December        2001,        prot.      D/55293
     EC: exclusive funding of public bodies dispensing occu-                   COMP/G1/PI/cpbD(01)1704 and the second refusal of
     pational and technical education introduces unlawful                      access pursuant upon the absence of any reply to the
     discrimination against the private bodies dispensing occu-                applicant’s confirmatory application sent to the Secretary-
     pational training, inasmuch as that discrimination is not                 General of the Commission by letter of 14 January 2002;
     necessitated by any overriding public interest.                     —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
                                                                               pay the costs of these proceedings.
—    Infringement of the principle of subsidiarity.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         In this action, the applicant challenges the defendant’s refusal
                                                                         to grant access to certain documents relating to the State aid
                                                                         regime which was the subject of the Commission’s decision of
Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Mara Messina                          2 August 2000 concerning measures to promote investment
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     in less-favoured regions of Italy referred to in Law
                                                                         No 488/1992 (State Aid no N 715/99).
                        (Case T-76/02)                                   —     In support of that claim, the applicant argues infringe-
                                                                               ment of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of
                      (2002/C 109/127)                                         the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May
                                                                               2001 regarding public access to European Parliament,
                                                                               Council and Commission documents in that:
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         —     no reply was given within the prescribed time-limit to the
                                                                               confirmatory application concerning the application for
                                                                               access;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               —     disclosure of the documents requested would in no way
European Communities on 18 March 2002 by Mara Messina,                         harm the public interest in protecting inspections and
represented by Michele Arcangelo Calabrese.                                    investigations or court proceedings.