Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Untitled

Untitled

Ratings: (0)|Views: 0 |Likes:
Published by eurolex

More info:

Published by: eurolex on Nov 27, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/18/2014

pdf

text

original

 
6.3.2004 EN C 59/29Official Journal of the European Union
Pleas in law and main arguments
Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance in CaseT-17/95(
1
), the Commission adopted an amendment of therules relating to the criteria applicable to appointment in gradeand classification in scale on recruitment, which entitledofficials to seek a review of their classification on entering theservice. By the contested decision, the Commission confirmedthe applicant’s classification in Grade A 7 on the date of hisrecruitment and, accordingly, rejected a request for reclassifi-cation submitted by the applicant.In support of his action, the applicant relies on a failure tostate reasons in the contested decision, a manifest error of assessment and alleged discrimination between the applicant,whose request for reclassification was rejected, and otherofficials who, with less professional experience than theapplicant, were none the less reclassified in the higher grade of the career bracket.
(
1
) JudgmentoftheCourtofFirstInstanceoftheEuropeanCommuni-ties of 5 October 1995, published in OJ C 315, 25.11.95, p. 14.
Action brought on 24 December 2003 by GibtelecomLimited against the Commission of the European Com-munities(Case T-433/03)
(2004/C 59/46)
(Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of theEuropean Communities on 24 December 2003 by GibtelecomLimited, Gibraltar, represented by Mr M. Llamas, Barrister andMr B. O’Connor Solicitor.The applicant claims that the Court should:Annul the Commission’s decision of 17 October 2003rejecting the complaint brought by Gibtelecom underArticle 86 EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC;order the Commission to pay Gibtelecom’s costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By the contesteddecision the Commission rejecteda complaintfiled by the applicant on 14 May 1996 alleging that theSpanish telecommunications operator, Telefonica SA, hadcommitted a series of abuses of dominant position contrary toArticle 82 EC in refusing to conclude a cross-border roaming(GSM) agreement with the applicant. The applicant laterconverted that complaint into a complaint under Article 86(EC, in conjunction with Articles 82 EC, 49 EC and 12EC, against Spain alleging that Telefonica was acting underinstructions from the Spanish Government which claimssovereignty over Gibraltar.In support of its application, the applicant invokes a series of alleged manifest errors of assessment of the contested decision.According to the applicant, the Commission erred in consider-ing that Telefonica is not a public undertaking or that it enjoysspecial rights within the meaning of article 86 EC. Theapplicant further alleges that Telefonica is in a dominantposition and that there is an appreciable effect on trade andon competition of the refusal to conclude an agreement withthe applicant. In the context of the same plea the applicantargues that the Commission’s assessment that consumers inGibraltar have access to mobile telecommunications servicesin Spain is manifestly unsound and that there is no suitablealternative to the Commission’s intervention.The applicant further puts forward a number of proceduraland administrative grounds for annulment referring, in thiscontext, to inadequate reasoning and a violation of theapplicant’s legitimate expectations which allegedly arose as aresult of a letter sent on 7 June 2000 by three members of theCommission to Spain and the United Kingdom, requesting thetwo countries, among other things, to find a solution to thecomplaint about roaming. The applicant further submits, inthe context of the same plea, that the Commission has failedto act impartially and that it has breached the principlerequiring it to act within a reasonable period.
Action brought on 24 December 2003 by GibtelecomLimited against the Commission of the European Com-munities(Case T-434/03)
(2004/C 59/47)
(Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of theEuropean Communities on 24 December 2003 by GibtelecomLimited, Gibraltar, represented by Mr M. Llamas Barrister andMr B. O’Connor Solicitor.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->