You are on page 1of 2

C 211/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 22.7.

2000

— Regardless of the decision given on the claim made in the — order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.
foregoing paragraph, require the European Commission to
pay compensation to Miguel Angel Martı́n de Pablos, in
accordance with Article 288 of the Treaty establishing the Pleas in law and main arguments
European Community, of EUR 12 000 by way of damages
for the unjustified delay of 10 months; By the present action, the applicant seeks a declaration that
the Court of Justice failed to fulfil its obligation to comply
— Order the defendant to pay the costs. with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30
September 1998 in Case T-154/96 Chvatal and Others v Court
of Justice (1). That judgment annulled the decision of the Court
Contentions and principal arguments of Justice rejecting the applicant’s request that her name be
included in the list of persons who expressed an interest in
The applicant, a candidate in open competition COM/A/98 being the subject of a decision terminating their service, as
organised by the Commission to draw up a reserve list of provided for by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No
assistant administrators, objects to the decision of the selection 2688/95 of 17 November 1995 introducing special measures
board not admitting him to the oral tests in that competition to terminate the service of officials of the European Communi-
because he was not one of the 160 best candidates in the ties as a result of the accession of Austria, Finland and
written tests. The applicant considers that the decision in Sweden (2).
question is vitiated by the lack of a statement of reasons and
misuse of powers, in that it does not disclose either the According to the applicant, the Court of Justice is obliged to
composition of the selection board or the identity of candidates act, not only pursuant to Article 233 of the Treaty, but also
who passed and those who failed. pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations (duty to give
assistance). In her view, she could have brought proceedings
The applicant contends that the fact that the marks for the before the Community judicature in respect of the Council’s
written tests were notified 10 months later than the date decision not to adopt the proposal for a regulation providing
indicated in the timetable included in the convening notice for for the Court to release staff, or seeking the inclusion of a
the competition is detrimental to him, since it prevented him heading in the Court budget to cover the expense involved in
from holding a full-time post in the meantime and receiving releasing staff.
the corresponding remuneration.
(1) [1998] ECR-SC-IA-257 and ECR-SC-II-1579.
(2) OJ No L 280 of 23.11.1995, p. 1.

Action brought on 2 May 2000 by Christiane Chvatal


against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Action brought on 5 May 2000 by Joaquı́n López Madruga
against Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-115/00)
(Case T-125/00)
(2000/C 211/46)
(2000/C 211/47)
(Language of the case: French)
(Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the European Communities on 2 May 2000 by Christiane ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Chvatal, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Alain Lorang, European Communities on 5 May 2000 by Joaquı́n López
of the Luxembourg Bar. Madruga, residing in Brussels, represented by Juan Ramón
Iturriagagoitia.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Court of Justice of 26 January
2000, notified on 2 February 2000, rejecting the appli- — annul in part the decision taken at first tacitly and,
cant’s complaint; subsequently, by failing to reply to his request, in so far as
it does not grant the applicant the right to transfer in full
— order the Court of Justice to pay compensation to the 35 % of his net monthly emoluments to his bank account
applicant in respect of the material damage suffered, as in the United Kingdom in order to meet university
defined in paragraph 3 of the application; education costs incurred by his sons Diego and Javier;
22.7.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 211/23

— order the Commission to draw up corrected pay slips as — In the alternative, annul the Commission Decision in so
from October 1999 and to pay default interest the far as the Commission wrongly used as the basis of its
increased amounts; and calculation of the demand for repayment a total amount
of aid approved of DEM 1 246 900 000 (less an adjust-
— order the Commission to pay the costs. ment for DEM 10 500 000 competition aid not granted
and DEM 27000 000 aid on closure) instead of the
total amount of the operating aid actually granted (DEM
Pleas in law and main arguments 230 984 000) with previous demands for repayment (DEM
83 000 000) being taken into account;
The applicant challenges the appointing authority’s refusal,
which took the form of failure to reply, to transfer 35 % of his — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
net salary to the account opened by him in the United
Kingdom in order to meet the university education costs of his
sons. The appointing authority has only acceded to the
applicant’s request to the extent of transferring 19 % of his Pleas in law and main arguments
salary to the abovementioned account.
The pleas in law and main arguments are essentially the same
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges that the following as in Case T-227/99 (2) with the exception of the argument
have been infringed: concerning the irregular composition of the Commission.

— Article 17(2)(a) and (b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regula-


tions and additional provisions; (1) OJ L 120, 20.5.2000, p. 12.
(2) OJ C 6, 8.1.2000, p. 27.
— the principle of proportionality,

— the principle of equal treatment,

— the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationa-


lity.

The applicant also alleges misuse of powers and failure to


observe the obligation to state the grounds on which measures Action brought on 19 May 2000 by Carmelo Morello
are taken. against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-135/00)

(2000/C 211/49)

Action brought on 18 May 2000 by Kværner Warnow


Werft GmbH against the Commission of the European (Language of the case: French)
Communities

(Case T-134/00) An action against the Commission of the European Communi-


ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 19 May
2000 by Carmelo Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by
(2000/C 211/48) Jacques Sambon and Pierre Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels
Bar.
(Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the — Annul the Commission decision to appoint another official
European Communities on 18 May 2000 by Kværner Warnow to post COM/069/99 IV/C1 ‘Telecommunications and
Werft GmbH of Rostock-Warnemünde, Germany, represented post, coordination of the information society’, being an
by Dr Michael Schütte, Rechtsanwalt, of Bruckhaus Westrick A3 Head of Unit post;
Heller Löber, Brussels.
— Annul the Commission decision not to accept the appli-
The applicant claims that the Court should: cant’s application for post COM/069/99 IV/C1 ‘Telecom-
munications and Post, coordination of the information
— Annul Commission Decision C (2000) 516 fin. of society’, being an A3 Head of Unit post, and all the
15 February 2000 on aid granted by Germany to Kværner measures preparatory to that decision which themselves
Warnow Werft GmbH (1), proved to be improper;