You are on page 1of 2

C 118/24 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 18.5.

2002

Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC and the 1. Annuls the decision of the selection board in competition COM/
second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for damage suffered by A/12/98 in so far as it concerns the mark awarded to the
the applicant as a result of his having been prevented from applicant for the oral test;
marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation 2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
(EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, (OJ
1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules
for the application of the additional levy referred to in (1) OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.
Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132,
p. 11), Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tilli and R. M. Moura Ramos,
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 7 February 2002, in which it:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST


(1) OJ C 304 of 29.10.1994. INSTANCE

19 December 2001

in Joined Cases T-195/01 R and T-207/01 R, Government


JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of Gibraltar v Commission of the European Communities

of 7 February 2002
(Proceedings for interim relief — State aid — Decision to
initiate a formal investigation procedure — Admissibility —
in Case T-193/00: Bernard Felix v Commission of the Prima facie case — Urgency — None — Balancing of
European Communities (1) interests)

(Officials — Open competition — Oral test — Non-


inclusion in the reserve list — Consistency of the composition (2002/C 118/39)
of the selection board — Knowledge of languages)

(2002/C 118/38) (Language of the Case: English)

(Language of the case: French)

In Joined Cases T-195/01 R and T-207/01 R, Government of


In Case T-193/00: Bernard Felix, an official of the Commission Gibraltar, represented by A. Sutton, M. Llamas, Barristers, and
of the European Communities, residing at Arlon (Belgium), W. Schuster, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, lawyers, with an bourg, against Commission of the European Communities,
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the (Agents: V. Di Bucci and R. Lyal): Application for interim
European Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for measures in respect of the decisions of the Commission of
annulment of the decision of the selection board in compe- 11 July 2001, notified to the Government of the United
tition COM/A/12/98 awarding the applicant a lower mark Kingdom by letters SG(2001) D/289755 and SG(2001) D/
than the minimum required for the oral test and excluding 289757, to initiate the procedure provided for by
him from the reserve list — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Article 88(2) EC in respect of alleged State aid granted under
Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, and R. Gracı́a- Gibraltarian legislation to exempt and qualifying companies
Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for respectively, the President of the Court of First Instance made
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 February 2002, in the following order on 19 December 2001, the operative part
which it: of which is as follows:
18.5.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 118/25

1. The applications for interim measures are dismissed. — the aid in question must be regarded as having been in
existence ever since 1928. In adopting the contested
2. The costs are reserved. decision, the Commission omitted the entire procedure
provided for by the first paragraph of Article 88;

— infringement of the Community rules concerning


improvements in the efficiency of agricultural structure
and of the ‘Community guidelines on State aid for
rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty’.
Action brought on 25 January 2002 by Giuseppe Atzeni
and Others against the Commission of the European
Communities The applicants also plead failure to comply with the obligation
to provide a statement of reasons.

(Case T-21/02)
(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002, p. 20.
(2002/C 118/40)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-


ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the Action brought on 7 February 2002 by Michel Sautelet
European Communities on 25 January 2002 by the applicants against the Commission of the European Communities
specified above, represented by Giovanni Dore and Fabio
Ciulli, lawyers.
(Case T-25/02)

The applicants claim that the Court should:


(2002/C 118/41)
— pursuant to Article 230 of the Treaty, declare unlawful,
and consequently annul in its entirety, Commission (Language of the case: French)
Decision 612/97, alternatively annul the same in so far
as it provides for the recovery of the aid granted to the
applicants by the Italian State, and order the Commission
to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 February 2002 by Michel
Sautelet, residing at Kirchberg (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg),
Pleas in law and main arguments
represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.
This action is directed against the same decision as that
contested in Case T-4/02 Arca Delio eredi and Others v
Commission (1) The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the express decision No 39090 of 6 November


In support of their claims, the applicants plead: 2001 fixing the compensation for the non-material
damage suffered by the applicant in the sum of
— lack of competence on the part of the defendant, 1 500euros;
inasmuch as the competition rules are not in principle
applicable in the agriculture sector. As regards the
provisions of Regulation No 26/62, the applicants main- — award the applicant the sum of 12 394,68 euros (rep-
tain that, in the present case, no aid was granted, either resenting the sum of LUF 500 000) by way of compen-
for production or for trade in the agricultural sector; sation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of
instead, what was intended was merely the re-establish- the lateness in drawing up his staff report for the period
ment of the necessary liquidity for agricultural undertak- from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;
ings facing objective difficulties, as expressly identified by
the Region of Sardinia. Moreover, that regulation provides — annul the express decision No 44024 of 15 November
that the rules concerning aid are applicable only in 2001 declaring inadmissible complaint No 497/01 of
relation to the matters covered by Article 88(1) and the 31 October 2001, registered by the General Secretariat of
first sentence of Article 88(3); the Commission on 5 November 2001;