CELEX: C2002/233/45
Language: en
Date: 2002-09-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-191/02: Action brought on 19 June 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef against the Commission of the European Communities

C 233/24                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.9.2002
The applicant considers that the Commission acted wrongfully                —     annul Mr Neil Kinnock’s letter of 22 November 2001
in so far as it failed to observe the procedure laid down in                      addressed to the presidents of all the trade unions
Directive 92/59. (1) In that regard, the applicant submits that                   informing them of his decision to ask the Commission to
the Commission did not establish that the apples tested had                       terminate the 1974 framework agreement on 5 December
originated from the applicant. In addition, there was no serious                  2001;
and immediate risk. The applicant states that the checks carried
out established only that there was an impermissible level of
dicofol. The applicant also claims that, by failing to consult
the parties concerned as quickly as possible, the Commission                —     annul Mr Erik Halskov’s decision No 47623 of 6 Decem-
acted in breach of Article 7(2) of Directive 92/59.                               ber 2001 refusing to grant the applicant leave to attend,
                                                                                  on a mission basis, the meeting of 7 December 2001 on
                                                                                  the ‘Comprehensive Package of Proposed Amendments
                                                                                  to the Statute’;
The damage suffered by the applicant consists of loss sustained
in the English market, loss of profit, and harm to its reputation.
The applicant states that in the preceding year it had worked
hard to break into the English market and build up a                        —     rule on costs, expenses and fees and order the European
reputation. Its efforts have now been rendered useless. The                       Commission to pay them.
damage was evidently caused by the Commission’s wrongful
conduct since, following the notifications under the rapid alert
system, the applicant’s sales in the English market were
brought to an end.
( 1) Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product
     safety (OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 24).                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            By the present action, the applicant is contesting, in particular,
                                                                            the Commission’s decision of 5 December 2001 whereby,
                                                                            according to the applicant and in so far as the A&D (Action &
                                                                            Défense) trade union is deprived of all or some of its
Action brought on 19 June 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef                           rights arising from its adhesion to the framework agreement
   against the Commission of the European Communities                       governing relations between the Commission and trade
                                                                            unions/staff organisations, in particular recognition of its
                                                                            representativity, participation in meetings at all levels and the
                           (Case T-191/02)                                  distribution of resources:
                           (2002/C 233/45)
                                                                            —     the agreement on relations between the Commission and
                                                                                  trade unions/staff organisations of 20 September 1974 is
                     (Language of the case: French)                               terminated with effect from 5 December 2001;
                                                                            —     the Operational Rules on levels of consultation, the
                                                                                  consultation body and related procedures (SEC (2000)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                         2086/3) agreed between the Commission and the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                        majority of the trade unions/staff organisations on 19 Jan-
European Communities on 19 June 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef,                          uary 2000 are re-adopted;
residing at Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles
Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                            —     the agreement of 4 April 2001 on the resources to be
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                       made available to the Central Committee and local staff
                                                                                  committees and the trade unions/staff organisations
                                                                                  (SEC(2001)955/5) is ratified;
—      annul the decision of the College of Commissioners of
       5 December 2001 by which the agreement of 20 Septem-
       ber 1974 on relations between the Commission and trade
       unions/staff organisations is terminated with effect from            —     the provisions on strikes laid down in Annex 1 to the
       5 December 2001;                                                           1974 framework agreement are ratified;
 ---pagebreak--- 28.9.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 233/25
—    Vice-President Kinnock is asked to enter into negotiations          The applicant claims that the Court should:
     with the trade unions/staff organisations and to propose
     for adoption by the Commission, before the end of March             —     allow the application;
     2002, a new framework agreement and to include in the
     series of amendments on which the trade unions and                  —     annul the contested measure;
     staff organisations are to be consulted an amendment
     providing for the opportunity to adopt electoral rules by
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay EUR 12 500 in respect of the
     way of a vote by the staff of the institution.
                                                                               material and non-material harm suffered by the applicant;
In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:                          —     order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs irrespec-
                                                                               tive of the outcome of the case.
—    clear intent to circumvent the judgment of the Court of
     First Instance of 22 November 2001 delivered in Case
     T-349/00 Lebedef v Commission;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—    infringement of the 1974 framework agreement and of
     the principle ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’;                     (1) Failure on the part of the defendant to comply with the
                                                                               judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-182/99
—    absence of any objective examination of the representativ-                by which the decision not to promote the applicant was
     ity of the trade unions/staff organisations and manifest                  annulled.
     error in the comparative assessment of that rep-
     resentativity;                                                      (2) Misuse of procedure.
—    infringement of the principle of non-discrimination;                (3) Misuse of powers.
—    infringement of the rights of the defence;                          (4) Unreasonable exercise by the defendant of its discretion
                                                                               in relation to promotions.
—    breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expec-
     tations;                                                            (5) Incorrect exercise of that discretion.
—    failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons;             (6) Sham re-examination of the applicant’s candidature for
                                                                               promotion.
—    failure to comply with the duty to have regard for the
     welfare and interests of officials;                                 (7) Superiority of the mark of the applicant, who was not
                                                                               promoted, vis-à-vis the marks of those promoted.
—    infringement of Article 24a of the Statute and of the
     principle of the freedom of trade union activity.                   (8) Liability for a wrongful act on the part of the defendant,
                                                                               causing the applicant material and non-material harm.
Action brought on 2 July 2002 by Georgios Karavelis
               against the European Parliament                           Action brought on 28 June 2002 by ‘N’ against Com-
                                                                                     mission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-197/02)
                                                                                                 (Case T-198/02)
                        (2002/C 233/46)
                                                                                                 (2002/C 233/47)
                   (Language of the Case: Greek)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
2 July 2002 by Georgios Karavelis, resident in Brussels,                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
represented by K. Tagaras, Lawyer, with an address for service           European Communities on 28 June 2002 by ‘N’, represented
in Luxembourg.                                                           by Nicola Lhoëst, lawyer.