You are on page 1of 2

C 246/32 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 28.8.

1999

1. Operation of the decision of 27 October 1998, imposing on the ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
applicant the disciplinary measure of removal from post without INSTANCE
reduction or withdrawal of entitlement to a retirement pension,
is suspended pending delivery of final judgment in the case by the of 21 June 1999
Court of First Instance;
in Case T-56/99 R: Marlines SA v Commission of the
2. The costs are reserved. European Communities

(Competition — Payment of the fine — Bank guarantee —


Procedure for interim measures — Suspension of enforce-
ment)

(1999/C 246/66)

(Language of the case: Greek)


ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
In Case T-56/99 R: Marlines SA, established in Monrovia,
represented by Dimitrios Papatheofanous, lawyer with right of
of 9 March 1999 audience before the Arios Pagos, Athens, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Paul Attallas, Route de
Trèves, Findel, v Commission of the European Communities
in Case T-205/98: Clauni S.A. and Others v Commission (Agents: Dimitris Triantafyllou and Richard Lyal) — application
of the European Communities (1) for suspension of enforcement of Commission Decision
1999/271/EC of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding
pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.466 — Greek
(Manifest inadmissibility) Ferries) (OJ 1999 L 109, p. 24), Article 2 of which fined the
applicant ECU 0.26 million for breach of Article 81 EC
(formerly Article 85 of the EC Treaty) — the President of the
(1999/C 246/65) Court of First Instance made an order on 21 June 1999, the
operative part of which is as follows:

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.


(Language of the case: French)
2. Costs are reserved.

In Case T-205/98: Clauni S.A., established at Agen (France),


Jean-Marie Bissieres, residing at La Croix Blanche (France), SA
Lomagenais, now known as SA Loma, established at Penne
D’Agenais (France), and André Lompech, residing at Canet
(France), represented by Daniel Veyssiere, of the Agen Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Aloïse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v Commission of the European ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Communities — application for an order of the Court allowing INSTANCE
a rebate application lodged by the first applicant with the
French customs authorities on 20 December 1998 in relation of 1 June 1999
to certain imports of mushrooms originating in Poland — the
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos,
President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, in Case T-93/99 R: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina v Com-
Registrar, made an order on 9 March 1999, the operative part mission of the European Communities
of which is as follows:
(Proceedings for interim measures — Urgency — None)
1. The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
(1999/C 246/67)
2. The applicants are to bear their own costs.
(Language of the case: Italian)

(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999. In Case T-93/99 R: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina, an official at the


Joint Research Centre, Ispra, represented by Mirco Rizzoglio,
of the Milan Bar, and Franco Colussi, of the Luxembourg Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at Mr Colussi’s
chambers, 36 Rue de Wiltz, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) — application for,
28.8.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 246/33

first, suspension of the acts preventing the transfer of part of three posts of Director-General (grade A1) were declared
the applicant’s remuneration to the home-purchase savings vacant on 25 June 1998: that of Director-General of the
account opened in her name with a financial institution Directorate-General for Finance and Financial Control (the
established in France and, second, authorisation to transfer new DG VIII), that of Director-General of the Directorate-
immediately the sums which should have been or should General for Administration (DG VI) and that of Director-
shortly be transferred — the President of the Court of First General of the Directorate-General for Personnel (DG V).
Instance made an order on 1 June 1999, the operative part of
which is as follows: The applicant, a grade A2 official of the Parliament, applied
for the first post. Apart from that application, the Secretary-
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed. General received three other admissible applications and two
further applications which were inadmissible under Article
2. Costs are reserved. 29(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations — including, in particular,
that of Mr L.V. (Chef de cabinet of the President of the
Parliament and an official of the Commission).

Mr L.V. was appointed on 16 July 1998. The applicant was


never officially informed of that decision, nor, a fortiori, of the
reasons on which it was based. By letter of 16 September
Action brought on 20 April 1999 by Michael Chamier 1998 he was informed by the Head of the Personnel Division
against the European Parliament that his application for the post had been rejected.

(Case T-97/99) The applicant maintains that:

(1999/C 246/68) — the procedure was solely designed to formalise a decision


— namely, to appoint Mr L.V. to the vacant post — which
had already been adopted before the commencement of
(Language of the case: French) the procedure. The choice of Mr L.V. was the result of a
political agreement and did not result from any proper
An action against the European Parliament was brought before exercise of the powers conferred on the appointing
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on authority in accordance with Article 29 of the Staff
20 April 1999 by Michael Chamier, residing in Luxembourg, Regulations;
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the — the conditions in which the appointing authority decided
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL 30 Rue de Cessange. to open the exceptional recruitment procedure and to
choose Mr L.V. are vitiated by various infringements of
procedural rules and of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations;
The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision taken by the appointing authority — Mr L.V. does not satisfy the conditions laid clown in the
on 16 July 1998 appointing Mr L.V. to the post of vacancy notice, since his qualifications and abilities are not
Director-General of the Directorate-General for Finance those which are required and demanded for such an
and Financial Control, the decision of the same date important position in the field of finance and financial
rejecting the application for that post submitted by the control;
applicant and, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
dated 21 January 1999 rejecting the applicant’s complaint; — the applicant’s curriculum vitae, on the other hand, fully
satisfies the requirements of the post. Consequently, the
— request the defendant to produce the notes sent by the appointing authority has committed a manifest error of
Secretary-General to the Bureau on 22 December 1997 assessment and has infringed Articles 7 and 27 of the Staff
and 13 and 16 July 1998 (documents PE 265.377/BUR, Regulations;
PE 271.309/BUR and PE 271.309/BUR/ADD), together
with the file relating to Mr L.V.’s application for the post — the appointing authority has violated the principles of
of Director-General of the Directorate-General for Finance sound management and of good administration; and
and Financial Control;
— there has been a breach of the general obligation to provide
— order the defendant to pay damages provisionally quanti- a statement of reasons.
fied, on an equitable basis, in the sum of 100 000 euros;
As to the claim for damages, the applicant maintains that the
— order the defendant to pay the costs. alleged loss is non-material and that it results from violation
of general principles of law and of the rules governing the
recruitment procedure and from disregard of the interests of
Pleas in law and main arguments the service. His legitimate expectation, if not that he would be
appointed to the post, at least that proper consideration would
Following the decision to split up the Parliament’s Directorate- be given to his application for it, has been seriously prejudiced.
General V (Personnel, the Budget and Finance) and to create
two new directorates-general (the Directorate-General for the
Budget and Finance and the Directorate-General for Personnel),