C 59/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.3.2004

The applicant claims that the Court should: — Direct the defendant to honour the settlement agreement reached with the applicant and to pay it a total final sum in respect of the Grant Agreement of EUR 40 919,65. Annul the Commission’s Decision of 20 October 2003 to pay only EUR 257 598,91, despite the existence of the settlement agreement. In the alternative to the first and second pleas above, should the Court find that no settlement agreement exists, to order the defendant to pay the applicant the final amount specified in its Final Report, less amounts already paid, totalling EUR 47 706,39. In the further alternative to the first and second pleas above, should the Court find that no settlement agreement exists, annul the Commission’s Decision of 20 October 2003 to pay only EUR 257 598,91 despite the applicant’s contractual claim in the Final Report for EUR 305 305,30. Order the defendant to pay interest on any amounts that the Court finds remain due or have been paid late in accordance with the pleas above. Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

approval of this sum, which the applicant duly did. On 20 October 2003, however, the Commission proceeded to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 257 598,91 which, as it claimed in subsequent correspondence, represented the final amount due under the agreement. In support of its application the applicant first submits that a binding settlement agreement was reached in May 2003 between the parties, providing that the amount payable would be EUR 298 518,65. It therefore asks the Court to enforce that agreement. In the alternative, if the Court should conclude that no settlement agreement was reached, the applicant claims that the Commission was bound to pay the original amount claimed, i.e. EUR 305 305,30, since it failed to express its concerns within sixty days of receipt of the application of payment. The applicant further argues that, in any case, the Commission’s decision to pay the applicant only EUR 257 598,91 should be annulled for failure to state reasons and for non-respect of the applicant’s right to be heard by the Commission before the final decision was adopted.

Action brought on 21 December 2003 by Gregorio Valero Jordana against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-429/03)

Pleas in law and main arguments

(2004/C 59/45) (Language of the case: French)

The Applicant is an international nonprofit making association active in the field of new car safety. On 22 August 2001, the applicant submitted to the Commission an application for a grant of 25 % funding of a project concerned with the safety assessment of certain types of vehicles, most notably four wheel drive vehicles. Thereafter, on 12 October 2001 the applicant and the Commission concluded a Grant Agreement the terms of which provided that the applicant would present to the Commission a final statement of all eligible costs, that on the basis of an examination of the final settlement the Commission would pay the balance of the grant to the applicant and that all sums under the agreement were to be paid within sixty days unless the Commission, within that period, informed the applicant that the request was not admissible . On 10 December 2002 the applicant submitted an application for payment of the outstanding balance, of the grant, which it claimed was EUR 305 305,30. On 31 March 2003, i.e. more than sixty days after receipt of the application, the Commission, not having paid the sum requested, raised certain queries with the applicant. These led to further submissions of documents by the applicant and a meeting between the parties representatives. On 2 May 2003 the Commission informed the applicant that final payment would be EUR 298 518,65 and asked the applicant to mark its

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 December 2003 by Gregorio Valero Jordana, residing in Uccle (Belgium), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg. The applicant claims that the Court should: — Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated 19 December 2003 confirming the applicant’s initial classification in Grade A 7; In so far as necessary, annul the decision of the appointing authority of 9 September 2003 rejecting the applicant’s complaint; Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/29

Pleas in law and main arguments Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-17/95 (1), the Commission adopted an amendment of the rules relating to the criteria applicable to appointment in grade and classification in scale on recruitment, which entitled officials to seek a review of their classification on entering the service. By the contested decision, the Commission confirmed the applicant’s classification in Grade A 7 on the date of his recruitment and, accordingly, rejected a request for reclassification submitted by the applicant. In support of his action, the applicant relies on a failure to state reasons in the contested decision, a manifest error of assessment and alleged discrimination between the applicant, whose request for reclassification was rejected, and other officials who, with less professional experience than the applicant, were none the less reclassified in the higher grade of the career bracket.
(1) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 5 October 1995, published in OJ C 315, 25.11.95, p. 14.

Article 82 EC in refusing to conclude a cross-border roaming (GSM) agreement with the applicant. The applicant later converted that complaint into a complaint under Article 86 (EC, in conjunction with Articles 82 EC, 49 EC and 12 EC, against Spain alleging that Telefonica was acting under instructions from the Spanish Government which claims sovereignty over Gibraltar.

In support of its application, the applicant invokes a series of alleged manifest errors of assessment of the contested decision. According to the applicant, the Commission erred in considering that Telefonica is not a public undertaking or that it enjoys special rights within the meaning of article 86 EC. The applicant further alleges that Telefonica is in a dominant position and that there is an appreciable effect on trade and on competition of the refusal to conclude an agreement with the applicant. In the context of the same plea the applicant argues that the Commission’s assessment that consumers in Gibraltar have access to mobile telecommunications services in Spain is manifestly unsound and that there is no suitable alternative to the Commission’s intervention.

Action brought on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom Limited against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-433/03) (2004/C 59/46) (Language of the case: English)

The applicant further puts forward a number of procedural and administrative grounds for annulment referring, in this context, to inadequate reasoning and a violation of the applicant’s legitimate expectations which allegedly arose as a result of a letter sent on 7 June 2000 by three members of the Commission to Spain and the United Kingdom, requesting the two countries, among other things, to find a solution to the complaint about roaming. The applicant further submits, in the context of the same plea, that the Commission has failed to act impartially and that it has breached the principle requiring it to act within a reasonable period.

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom Limited, Gibraltar, represented by Mr M. Llamas, Barrister and Mr B. O’Connor Solicitor. The applicant claims that the Court should: — Annul the Commission’s decision of 17 October 2003 rejecting the complaint brought by Gibtelecom under Article 86 EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC; order the Commission to pay Gibtelecom’s costs.

Action brought on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom Limited against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-434/03) (2004/C 59/47) (Language of the case: English)

Pleas in law and main arguments By the contested decision the Commission rejected a complaint filed by the applicant on 14 May 1996 alleging that the Spanish telecommunications operator, Telefonica SA, had committed a series of abuses of dominant position contrary to An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom Limited, Gibraltar, represented by Mr M. Llamas Barrister and Mr B. O’Connor Solicitor.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful