You are on page 1of 1

C 234/38 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25.7.


Some of the addressees brought actions for annulment Action brought on 8 June 1998 by Ioannis Rentzos
of that decision pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty. against the European Parliament
On 31 March 1993 the Court of Justice ruled that the (Case T-93/98) 
Wood pulp decision' was unlawful (the Wood pulp
judgment' (2)). (98/C 234/71)

(Language of the case: French)
In Case T-227/95 (3) brought by the applicants, the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities annulled a An action against the European Parliament was brought
refusal by the Commission to repay the fines which are before the Court of First Instance of the European
the subject-matter of the contested decision in this case. Communities on 8 June 1998 by Ioannis Rentzos, residing
at Niederanven (Luxembourg), represented by Carlo
In Case T-292/97 (4) the applicants seek (inter alia) a Revoldini, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for
declaration pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty that service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 180 Route de
the Commission had failed to act on the obligations Longwy.
arising out of the judgment in Case T-227/95.
The applicant claims that the Court should:

In the present case the applicants submit that the Ð annul as unfounded the existing staff report on Mr
contested decision constitutes a repeated failure by the Ioannis Rentzos for the period from 1 January 1995 to
Commission to comply with Article 176 of the EC Treaty. 1 January 1997;
Its refusal to comply with the obligations arising out of
the Wood pulp judgment' was condemned as unlawful by Ð declare unfounded the decision of the European
the Court of First Instance. It has now repeated its refusal Parliament not to amend the staff report on Mr
to comply with the obligations arising out of the Wood Ioannis Rentzos for the period from 1 January 1995 to
pulp judgment' and has refused to comply with the 1 January 1997;
judgment of the Court of First Instance as well.
Ð order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
Pursuant to Article 173 and 174 of the EC Treaty, the
contested decision should be annulled since it is in breach Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
of the Commission's obligations under Article 176 of the
Treaty and of the judgment in Case T-227/95. The applicant, a grade LA 5 official in Directorate-
General 7 of the defendant institution, considers that his
staff report for the period 1995Ð1997 does not accurately
Pursuant to Article 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty, the reflect the situation concerning his employment. That
Commission should be ordered to pay the applicants error of assessment results from a lack of objectivity and
compensation equivalent to the sums paid by them by way from certain omissions in the precise description of the
of fines in respect of the alleged infringements found at tasks performed by him.
Articles 1(1) and 1(2) of the Wood pulp decision',
together with interest from the date of payment of the
In support of his claim, the applicant pleads infringement
fines until the date by which the Commission should have
of the first paragraph of Article 43 of the Staff
complied with its obligations under the Wood pulp
Regulations and breach of the general principles of
judgment', and interest in respect of the loss caused to the
equality of treatment and of fairness.
applicants by the Commission's delay in complying with
its obligations under the Wood pulp judgment'.
He considers in that regard that the failure to take into
account all the tasks and missions carried out by him
(1) Decision 85/202/EEC (IV/29.725 Ð Wood pulp), OJ L 85 of
26.3.1985, p. 1. during the period under consideration resulted in an
(2) Joined Cases C-89, 104, 114, 116, 117 and 125 to 129/85 incorrect appraisal of his ability, efficiency and conduct,
[1993] ECR I-1307. thereby distorting the administration's assessment in
(3) AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and Others v Commission relation to him. Since he was not assessed in the light of
[1997] ECR II-1185; appealed (Case C-310/97 P). all the factors which should have been taken into
(4) pending. consideration by the appointing authority, he was not
treated on an equal footing with his colleagues and was
unfairly treated.