You are on page 1of 1

17.7.

1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 204/39

Action brought on 27 April 1999 by Associazione delle The applicant emphasises that, according to the Decision on
Cantine Sociali Venete against the European Ombudsman public access to Commission documents, recourse to the
and the European Parliament Ombudsman is one of the ‘means of redress that arc available’
against a European institution’s refusal of a request for access.
His activity was therefore in no way comparable with a mere
(Case T-103/99) recommendation or an opinion of any other institution.

(1999/C 204/96)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the European Ombudsman and the European


Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 27 April 1999 by Associazione
delle Cantine Sociali Venete, represented by Ivone Cacciavillani
and Antonio Cimino, both of the Venice and Padua Bar, with Action brought on 12 May 1999 by Natalia Martinez
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Paramo and Others against the Commission of the Euro-
Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I. pean Communities

The applicant claims that the Court should: (Case T-117/99)

— Declare that the European Ombudsman unlawfully failed


to act, within the meaning of Article 175 of the EC Treaty, (1999/C 204/97)
in relation to the applicant’s request presented (with other
requests) on 3 June 1997 (received on 9 June 1997) for
intervention in a case of refusal by the Commission of
access to documents.
(Language of the case: French)
— Order the defendants to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments European Communities on 12 May 1999 by Natalia Martinez
Paramo, Jean-Marc Venineaux, Marc Luyckx, of Brussels, Ron
Moys, of Kent, the United Kingdom, Ines Van Lierde, Jean-Paul
The applicant association challenges the Ombudsman’s dis- Richard, Richard Harding, Myrian Izquierdo, Helmut Weber,
missal of its request for intervention concerning a case of Mairead Buckley, Anna Sodro, Jean-Martial Marenne, Walter
refusal by the Commission of access to documents concerning Marchand Lutwin, Carmelo Calamia, of Brussels, Anastassia
the procedure followed by the Commission in determining the Vakalopoulou, of Luxembourg, Luigi Malinconico, Thérèse
compulsory distillation of table wines for the year 1993/1994. Nibelle, Michael Horgan, Maria Jadot, Kader Chaffi, Hervé
Lefeuvre, of Brussels, Marcello Magliulo, of Longwy, France,
Bernard Bertrand, Marc-Ivan Miot, Catherine Cloquette, Nicola
In support of its claims, the applicant argues that there has Pellegrino, Vassiliki Pechlivanidou, of Brussels and Barry
been infringement of: Stephen Magee, of Gonderange, Luxembourg, represented by
Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
— Article 3 of Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
European Parliament of 9 March 1994 on the regulations Rheinsheim.
and general conditions governing the performance of the
Ombudsman’s duties;
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— Article 138e of the EC Treaty; and
— annul the procedure and tests for the internal competition
— Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 8 Feb- COM/T/A/2/98 for the appointment as established officials
ruary 1994 on public access to the Commission docu- of category A temporary agents, with a view to creating a
ments. reserve list of principal administrators. administrators and
assistant administrators;
In particular, the applicant argues that the Ombudsman has
not fulfilled his function in this case and, despite the long time — annul the procedure and tests for the internal competition
which elapsed and the notice sent to him to which he did not COM/T/B/2/98 for the appointment as established officials
even reply, has failed to adopt any of the decisions and/or of category B temporary agents, with a view to creating a
initiatives which were his responsibility and which were reserve list of principal assistants, assistants, and deputy
requested by the applicant. assistants;