You are on page 1of 2

C 227/28

EN
EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.8.2001

European Communities on 23 May 2001 by Stefano Cocchi, residing at Varano Borghi (Italy), and Evi Hainz, residing at Besozzo (Italy), represented by Laure Levi and Georges Vandersanden, avocats.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decisions of the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts (AECC), of unknown date, appointing persons to fill the posts declared vacant by, respectively, vacancy notices COM/R/5530/00 of 24 February 2000

of

24 February 2000 (in the case of Ms Hainz) and, in so far

annul the implicit decision rejecting

the applicants’ complaints;

as may be necessary,

(in the case of Mr Cocchi) and COM/R/5500/00

— order the defendant to pay one euro by way of damages

that

for the prejudice suffered as a result of that decision,

sum being fixed on an equitable and provisional basis;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments advanced in this application are analogous to those put forward in Case T-330/00( 1 ).

( 1 ) OJ 2000 C 372, p. 15.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to

Conclude Contracts

procedures initiated by the publication of the following vacancy notices: COM/R/5638/00 and COM/R/5639/00 (in the case of Francesca Bertolo), COM/R/5526/00 (in the case of Laurence Bories), COM/R/5645/00 (in the case of Lionello Brovelli), COM/R/5889/99 (in the case of

(AECC) to cancel the recruitment

Philippe Chemin), COM/R/5520/00 (in the case of Laura Copes), COM/R/5646/00 (in the case of Maria Gabriella D’Elia), COM/R/5863/99 (in the case of Emanuele Mondi- ni) and COM/R/5521/00 (in the case of Helen Preissler);

in the case of Philippe Chemin and Emanuele Mondini, annul, respectively, vacancy notices COM/R/5734/00 (Philippe Chemin) and COM/R/5735/00 (Emanuele Mon- dini), published on 23 June 2000, and annul the decisions taken in the context of those new recruitment procedures;

order the defendant to pay one euro by way of damages for the prejudice suffered as a result of the contested decisions, that sum being fixed on an equitable and provisional basis;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action reproduces the facts and legal arguments put forward in support of the application of certain applicants in Case T-331/00 Bories and Others v Commission( 1 ).

( 1 ) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000, p. 16.

Action brought on 29 May 2001 by Francesca Bertolo and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-115/01)

(2001/C 227/54)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-

the

European Communities on 29 May 2001 by Francesca Bertolo, residing at Varese (Italy), Laurence Bories, residing at Vallon Pont d’Arc (France), Lionello Brovelli, residing at Angera (Italy), Philippe Chemin, residing at Gif sur Yvette (France), Laura Copes, residing at Ispra (Italy), Maria Gabriella d’Elia, residing at Taino (Italy), Emanuele Mondini, residing at Gavirate (Italy) and Helen Preissler, residing at Siegsdorf (Germany), represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, avocats.

ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of

Action brought on 28 May 2001 by Marcos Roman Parra against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-117/01)

(2001/C 227/55)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi- ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 May 2001 by Marcos Roman Parra, residing at Zaventem (Belgium), represented by Jean- Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

11.8.2001

EN
EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 227/29

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision not to promote him

to

grade A6 in the course of the 2000 promotion procedure;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

article. In the applicant’s view, the present case does not involve any selective advantage of the type which is inherent in all aid, at least as regards the amounts paid to FGV, the consideration for which was the provision of a maritime transport service.

— Misinterpretation of the concept of aid within the mean- ing of the abovementioned article, inasmuch as the Commission states that the amounts paid in return for travel vouchers did not correspond to any actual need of

In support of his action, the applicant pleads a failure to

provide a statement of reasons, as required by Article 25 of the applicant, since they had not yet been used as at the

date when the contested decision was adopted. The applicant asserts in that regard that the travel vouchers do not have to be used within any specific period and that the purchase of them constituted a normal

on the absence of a staff report. commercial transaction.

able career prospects. The applicant bases his claim, inter alia,

the Staff Regulations, and also infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and breach of the principle of equal treatment and the principle that officials should have reason-

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 31 May 2001 by Diputacio´ n Foral

Commission of the European

de Bizkaia against the

Communities

(Case T-118/01)

(2001/C 227/56)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-

ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 31 May 2001 by Diputacio´ n Foral

by

de Bizkaia, established in Bilbao (Spain), represented

Marta Morales Isasi and Ignacio Saenz-Cortabarria Ferna´ndez, abogados.

Breach of the right to property enshrined in Article 295 EC, inasmuch as the contested decision obliges the contractor providing the transport service to refund all the amounts received, on the basis of the non-utilisation of the vouchers purchased. The applicant states that the imposition of that obligation entails a de facto restriction on the capacity to conclude contracts which goes beyond what is permitted by the Community rules governing State aid.

Absence or insufficiency of a statement of reasons for the decision, inasmuch as it does not show that the 1995 Agreement has any real effect on competition and intra- Community trade.

Misinterpretation of Article 87(2)(a) EC, inasmuch as the Commission, having acknowledged that the aid benefits individual consumers with special needs and may there- fore be regarded as aid having a social character, goes on to state, without producing any evidence in support, that the condition laid down by the Treaty (namely, the absence of discrimination related to the origin of the products concerned) is not fulfilled.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 29 November 2000 on the aid scheme implemented by Spain in favour of the shipping company Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya (OJ L 89 of 29 March 2001, p. 28);

In the alternative, in the event that the Court of First Instance considers that — as the contested decision maintains — the 1995 Agreement in itself constitutes State aid in favour of FGV within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, the applicant asserts that it is lawful aid (existing aid), since the Kingdom of Spain has not infringed the obligation laid down in the final sentence of Article 93(3) of the Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC).

— order the Commission to pay the costs. Given that what is involved is lawful aid, Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty

Pleas in law and main arguments

— annul Article 2 of that decision in so far as it orders

the

recovery of ESP 985 500 000 together with interest thereon;

does not permit its recovery, and Article 2 of the decision is therefore null and void.

The applicant bases its action on the following pleas:

— Infringement of Article 87(1) EC, on account of the incorrect assessment made by the Commission in con- sidering, from the outset, that all the amounts granted to Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya (FGV) under the 1995 Agree- ment constitute State aid within the meaning of that