You are on page 1of 2

C 258/38 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 15.8.

98

Action brought on 24 June 1998 by Bureau EuropeÂen According to the applicant, therefore, the object of the
des Unions de Consommateurs (BEUC) against the present case differs from that of the application in Case
Commission of the European Communities T-256/97. Whereas that case concerns the right of
(Case T-96/98) representative consumer organisations to take part in anti-
dumping proceedings as interested parties, the present
(98/C 258/68) application refers to the validity of a regulation adopted
following a procedure which infringes an essential
(Language of the case: English) procedural requirement.

(1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998, p. 21.
An action against the Commission of the European (2) OJ L 111 of 9.4.1998, p. 19.
Communities was brought before the Court of First (3) OJ L 56 of 6.3.1996, p. 1.
Instance of the European Communities on 24 June 1998
by Bureau EuropeÂen des Unions de Consommateurs
(BEUC), represented by Bernard O'Connor and Bonifacio
García Porras, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie
Adelaïde.
Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Maurizio Gastaldello
against the Committee of the Regions
The applicant claims that the Court should: (Case T-97/98)
(98/C 258/69)
Ð declare void, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the
EC Treaty, Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/98
(Language of the case: French)
of 7 April 1998 imposing a provisional anti-dumping
duty on imports of certain unbleached cotton fabrics
originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, An action against the Committee of the Regions was
India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey; brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 30 June 1998 by Maurizio Gastaldello,
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
Ð make any additional order which the Court considers VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise
necessary; and Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the 30 Rue de Cessange.
proceedings.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð annul the decision not to admit the applicant to the
tests in competition C/01/97;
The applicant in the present case, the same as in Case
T-256/97 (1), is an international representative consumer
organisation comprising a number of national Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
organisations, whose object is the promotion of the
interests of consumers in relation to the policies of the Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
European Union.
On 27 October 1997 the applicant, a grade D 3/4 official
The applicant claims that Commission Regulation (EC) in the Council of the European Union, submitted his
No 773/98 of 7 April 1998, imposing a provisional anti- application to take part in internal competition No C/01/
dumping duty on imports of certain unbleached cotton 97 organised by the Committee of the Regions with a
fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China, view to constituting a reserve list for the recruitment of
Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey (2), should be grade C5/C4 typists.
declared void.
The contested decision provided that he was not to be
It is submitted in this regard that the Commission, by not admitted to the tests.
recognising the applicant as an interested party in
the administrative procedure relating to the contested According to the applicant, the notice of competition is
regulation and by not allowing it either to have access unlawful in that it lays down a criterion for admission
to all confidential documents and information made which cannot be legally justified by the specific
available during the anti-dumping proceeding or to submit requirements of the posts to be filled. He further
its comments, has infringed an essential procedural maintains that the notice is unlawful in that it excludes
requirement provided for in favour of consumer applications from potential candidates fulfilling the
organisations in Article 6(7) and 21(2) of Council criteria laid down by Article 5(4) of the Staff Regulations
Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on who, at the time when the notice of competition was
protection against dumped imports from countries not published, were not performing duties similar to those
members of the European Community (3). described in Point II of the notice in question.
15.8.98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 258/39

In the applicant's view, the notice of competition breaches breached its obligations by failing to provide her with the
the principle of equal treatment, inasmuch as it excludes working environment and support necessary in order to
from participation in the selection procedure officials enable her satisfactorily to complete the tasks assigned to
possessing experience equivalent to that offered by her.
officials who, at the time of publication of the notice of
competition, were employed in posts similar to the posts The report prepared in relation to the applicant at the
to be filled. expiry of her probationary period is vitiated by a manifest
Lastly, the applicant argues that the contested decision is error of assessment, inasmuch as it concerns duties
vitiated by a complete absence of any relevant statement completely different from those for which she was
of reasons enabling him to consider whether it was recruited.
justified and permitting the Community judicature to
exercise it powers of review. According to the applicant, the defendant has breached
the rights of the defence and has committed an abuse of
process, since it is only the Centre itself which is
competent to adopt a decision dismissing a person and the
decision adopted by the Director alone is therefore illegal.
Finally, the defendant has not respected the notice periods
Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Tania Trigari- laid down by the Conditions of Employment of Other
Venturin against the Translation Centre for Bodies of Servants and by the signed contract of employment
the European Union binding the parties.
(Case T-98/98)
(98/C 258/70) As regards the compensation claimed, the defendant's
conduct has placed the applicant in a position of
(Language of the case: French)
uncertainty and has caused her to suffer concrete material
An action against the Translation Centre for Bodies of damage, since she has been deprived of part of the
the European Union was brought before the Court of unemployment benefits to which she is entitled.
First Instance of the European Communities on 30 June
1998 by Tania Trigari-Venturin, residing at Sandweiler
(Luxembourg), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique
Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Removal from the register of Case T-229/95 (1)
Cessange.
(98/C 258/71)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Language of the case: Italian)
Ð annul the decision of the Translation Centre for Bodies
of the European Union of 9 October 1997 dismissing
the applicant with effect from 31 October 1997; By order of 16 June 1998, the President of the Fourth
Chamber (Extended) of the Court of First Instance of the
Ð order the defendant to pay to the applicant the token European Communities has ordered the removal from the
sum of one euro by way of compensation for the non- register of Case T-229/95: Telecom Italia Mobile SpA v
material damage suffered by her, together with Commission of the European Communities.
compensation for the material damage suffered by her
in the estimated sum of BFR 500 000, subject to (1) OJ C 46 of 17.2.1996.
increase or decrease during the course of the
proceedings;

Ð order the defendant to pay default interest on all sums
due pursuant to the judgment to be given, calculated
at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date on which
the social benefits to which the applicant is entitled Removal from the register of Case T-128/97 (1)
became due until the date of payment; (98/C 258/72)
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
(Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
By order of 17 June 1998 the President of the Second
The applicant considers that, by adopting its decision to
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
dismiss her, the defendant infringed Articles 9 and 10 of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and
Case T-128/97: Lars Bösche v European Parliament.
breached the principle that a person's grade should be
consistent with the duties to be performed by that person,
in that it assigned to the applicant tasks of a higher level (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
than those for which she had been recruited, and failed to
draw up a rider to her contract. The defendant further