title: Guide to candidates taking part in an open competition

text:
17.7.2002              EN                           Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 171 A/1
                                                                       III
                                                                    (Notices)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                   OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
                            GUIDE TO CANDIDATES TAKING PART IN AN OPEN COMPETITION
                                                               (2002/C 171 A/01)
              A.    INTRODUCTION
              B.    NOTICE OF COMPETITITION AND APPLICATION FORM
                    1. General conditions
                     2. Knowledge of languages
                     3. Education and diplomas
                     4. Experience
                     5. Signing of application form
                     6. Submission of application form and supporting documents
              C.    COMPETITION PROCEDURE
                     1. Organisation
                     2. General procedure
                     3. Procedure after submission of applications
                     4. Written tests
                     5. Oral test
                     6. Reserve list
              D.    CAREER PROGRESSION AND WORKING CONDITIONS
                     1. Categories of post
                     2. Remuneration and other special conditions
                       A. INTRODUCTION                                          for a post at the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                Communities.
1.   Open competitions for the recruitment of officials of the                  If you decide to enter, you should read this guide very
     European Union are organised in accordance with the                        carefully as it tells you:
     Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communi-                    —    how to complete the application form correctly and
     ties. Before a competition is held, a notice of competition                     what other documentation you need to provide,
     is published in the Official Journal of the European Communi-
     ties.                                                                      —    how competitions are organised,
                                                                                —    what kinds of job are available and what working
2.   Only applications submitted for a special competition
                                                                                conditions are like in the institutions of the European
     will be accepted.
                                                                                Union.
3.   This copy of the Official Journal includes the notice of                   However, this guide is for information only. The only
     competition and the application form as well as this                       text binding on the selection board in the course of its
     guide for candidates taking part in an open competition                    proceedings is the notice of competition.
 ---pagebreak--- C 171 A/2              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    17.7.2002
    B.    NOTICE OF COMPETITION AND APPLICATION FORM                              Union (Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French,
                                                                                German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and
                                                                                Swedish) and a satisfactory knowledge of a second
Please read this carefully before completing your appli-                          official language to the extent necessary for the
cation form.                                                                      performance of the duties attaching to the post in
                                                                                question.
1.    General conditions                                                          Candidates take the written tests in their main
                                                                                language (this may or may not be their mother
      (a)   You must read the competition notice carefully so                     tongue). If the competition notice so provides, they
            as to make absolutely sure that you fulfil the basic                  may have to take written tests in the second language
            conditions for admission to the competition, in                       of their choice.
            particular those relating to:
                                                                              (b) Some competitions, such as those for lawyer-
            —     nationality (1),                                                linguists, interpreters and secretaries, are organised
                                                                                for candidates of a particular language.
            —     age,
                                                                                It is very difficult for candidates, even those who
            —     education, and
                                                                                consider themselves bilingual, to succeed in a com-
            —     any experience required.                                        petition which is not in their main language.
            The selection board has to take those conditions                      Candidates are therefore advised in such cases to
            into account when deciding whether or not candi-                      decide which is their main language and to apply
            dates are to be admitted to the competition.                          only for competitions held in that language.
      (b) Candidates must use the application form for the
            appropriate competition contained in the Official
            Journal. Only the form bearing the number of the             3.   Education and diplomas
            competition may be used. Since this is the basic
            document used by selection boards when they                       (a) As the notice of competition published in the
            decide which candidates to admit to the competition,                  Official Journal is addressed to nationals of the
            it needs to be filled in extremely carefully.                         15 Member States, it has to cover all the education
            Candidates are also asked to enclosed their curric-                   systems at the various levels and cannot therefore
            ulum vitae supplementing or providing further                         be geared to the subtleties of each individual system.
            details of the information given in the application
            form.                                                             (b) Candidates educated in non-member countries
                                                                                should provide a certificate of national equivalence,
      (c)   The name under which you apply must be used in all                    issued by the Member State of which they are
            correspondence in connection with the competition                     nationals, for diplomas and certificates obtained
            even if you subsequently change your marital status.                  outside the European Union to enable the selection
                                                                                board to assess the level of their studies.
      (d) Candidates are urged to provide their permanent
            address where they can be contacted at any time
            during the duration of the procedure. They must                   (c) Educational qualifications will be checked and
            notify the recruitment section without delay of                       assessed by the selection board and, where necessary,
            any change of address in order to ensure the safe                     by persons with an expert knowledge of your
            arrival of communications concerning the compe-                       country’s education system.
            tition.                                                               It is very important that you give the precise dates
      (e)   Candidates seeking exemption from the age limit                       and details of the different stages and levels of your
            must fill in the appropriate part of the application                  education on your application form.
            form and enclose supporting documents.                                In the case of technical or vocational training and
                                                                                specialist or refresher training, you should specify
                                                                                whether the course was full-time or part-time or an
2.    Knowledge of languages                                                      evening course, what subjects were covered and
      (a)   All candidates for a post in an institution of the                    how long the course lasted.
            European Union must have a thorough knowledge
            of one of the official languages of the European                  (d) Photocopies of the diplomas or certificates
                                                                                required for admission to the competition must
                                                                                be enclosed with your application form.
(1) The Member States of the European Union are: Austria, Belgium,
    Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxem-             Candidates who fail to submit copies of their
    bourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United                diplomas or certificates will not be admitted to
    Kingdom.                                                                      the competition.
 ---pagebreak--- 17.7.2002           EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 171 A/3
4.   Experience                                                       5.   Signing of application form
     (a) A minimum number of years’ experience is required                 It is compulsory to sign the completed application form.
         for many competitions. This part of the application               In signing you are declaring on your honour that the
         form should be filled in extremely carefully.                     information provided is true and complete, and clearly
                                                                           indicating your intention to take part in the competition.
     (b) You should specify the exact date when you took up
         or left a post, describe your duties and the kind of              An unsigned application will be considered void and
         work involved and give precise details of your                    will be rejected without being forwarded to the
         responsibilities and of your salary.                              selection board.
         Simply to say ‘manager’ or ‘office worker’ is not
         sufficient and may result in exclusion from the
                                                                      6.   Submission of application form and supporting docu-
         competition on the grounds that there is no evidence
                                                                           ments
         that you have the required experience.
                                                                           (a)    Each applicant’s file consists of the official appli-
         It is in your interest to provide full details of the
                                                                                cation form, which must be signed, together with
         posts your have held. If necessary, you should attach
                                                                                supporting documents.
         additional sheets to your application.
                                                                           (b) The official application form, together with photo-
     (c) Where professional experience is specified in the                        copies of supporting documents, must be sent,
         notice of competition, it is counted only from                           preferably by registered post, by the deadline speci-
         the time the candidate obtained the certificate or                       fied in the notice of competition, as evidenced by
         diploma required for admission to the competition.                       the postmark.
         Any experience gained prior to this will not be                          Application forms and photocopies of support-
         counted by the selection board.                                          ing documents lodged after the deadline will
                                                                                be rejected without being forwarded to the
         By providing clear and correct details of your                           selection board.
         experience, you place the selection board in the best
         possible position to decide whether or not to admit               (c)    Candidates may not refer to documents, application
         you to the competition.                                                  forms or information sheets submitted in connec-
                                                                                tion with previous recruitment procedures.
     (d) Since further training courses leading to a certificate           (d) Documents enclosed with the application form will
         or diploma and duly attested periods of specialist or                    not be returned. Candidates are recommended to
         refresher training count as professional experience,                     send copies of their certificates and diplomas and of
         provided that they are relevant to the duties specified                  documents relating to their professional experience.
         in the notice of competition, full supporting docu-
         mentation must be provided.
         The exact dates (day, month, year) when each period
         began and ended must be specified.                                             C. COMPETITION PROCEDURE
         Without this information, the selection board will
         be unable to determine how much experience to
         credit you with.
                                                                      1.   Organisation
     (e) Photocopies of statements from previous                           (a)    In the case of competitions run by the Court
         employers and from your present employer                                 of Justice, candidates will be dealing throughout
         confirming your experience must be enclosed                              exclusively with the Recruitment Section of the
         with your application form.                                              Personnel Division of the Court of Justice.
         If you are unable to provide a statement from                     (b) All correspondence should be sent to the following
         your present employer, you may send a photo-                             address:
         copy of your contract or of your first and your
         latest payslips instead.                                                  Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                                Personnel Division — Recruitment
         Candidates who fail to provide the necessary                                            L-2925 Luxembourg
         supporting documents in respect of their pro-                                             Tel. (352) 43 03-1
         fessional experience will not be admitted to the                                       Fax (352) 43 03-27 10
         competition.
 ---pagebreak--- C 171 A/4                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     17.7.2002
      (c)   The Court of Justice applies a policy of equal                      (e) after considering the files, the selection board draws
            opportunity and of selection according to merit by                      up a list of candidates who meet the conditions set
            means of fair competitions open to all. All such                        out in the notice of competition:
            steps as shall be considered reasonable will be taken
            to ensure that handicapped persons can take part in                     —     for competitions based on tests, all candidates
            competitions on an equal footing with the other                               on the list are admitted to the tests,
            candidates.
                                                                                —     for competitions based on qualifications and
            In accordance with the code of good conduct in
                                                                                tests, the selection board first establishes the
            force at the Court of Justice, handicapped persons
                                                                                criteria on the basis of which it will assess the
            are requested to specify, in their application form,
                                                                                candidates’ qualifications and then decides on
            the equipment they consider necessary for their
                                                                                the basis of the list, after examining the qualifi-
            participation in the tests. Everything will be done to
                                                                                cations, which candidates are to be admitted to
            ensure that they are treated equally with the other
                                                                                the tests,
            candidates and all reasonable arrangements re-
            quested by them will be made.
                                                                                —     for competitions based on qualifications, the
                                                                                selection board establishes the criteria on which
                                                                                it will examine the qualifications of candidates
2.    General procedure                                                                   on the list, gives marks for the qualifications
                                                                                and draws up a list of suitable candidates in
                                                                                order of merit.
      The Staff Regulations provide for three different types of
      competition.
                                                                           3.   Procedure after the submission of applications
      As a general rule, staff are recruited to the Court of Justice
      by means of competitions based on qualifications and
                                                                                (a) The safe arrival of your application form will
      tests. In exceptional cases, competitions may be based on
                                                                                be acknowledged by the Personnel Division. This
      qualifications only.
                                                                                acknowledgement does not necessarily mean that
                                                                                you will be admitted to the competition.
      The competition procedure is as follows:
                                                                                (b) When it has examined all the application forms, the
      (a)   candidates must complete and sign the official                          selection board will inform candidates by letter
            application form. It is essential that they provide                     whether or not they have been admitted to the
            copies of supporting documents and any necessary                        competition.
            additional information by the deadline specified in
            the notice of competition;                                          (c) In the letter stating that they have been admitted to
                                                                                the competition, candidates will be asked to attend
      (b) a selection board is set up for each competition; it                      the tests; the date and the venue for the tests will be
            consists of members designated by the appointing                        specified in the letter.
            authority and by the Staff Committee; since selection
            board members are not released from their usual                     (d) Candidates not admitted to the tests will be told
            duties, a certain amount of time will necessarily                       why.
            elapse before the names of candidates admitted to
            the tests and the results of the tests are known;                       Candidates who feel that a mistake has been made
                                                                                regarding eligibility have 30 days from the date
      (c)   the proceedings of the selection board are secret;                      postmarked on the letter stating that they have been
            candidates are not entitled to contact it or to see                     excluded from the competition in which to ask for
            their papers after they have been marked;                               their application to be reconsidered.
                                                                                The selection board will then reconsider the appli-
      (d) the appointing authority draws up a list of candi-                        cation and decide whether the complaint is justified.
            dates who satisfy the general conditions laid down
            in the Staff Regulations (1) and have submitted their               (e) Most applications are made by candidates who have
            application in time, and sends it to the selection                      omitted to enclose supporting documents relating to
            board with the candidates’ files;                                       their professional experience or who have enclosed
                                                                                insufficiently detailed evidence to enable the selec-
                                                                                tion board to assess how much, what kind or what
(1) In order to qualify for appointment as an official in an institution            level of experience they possess. A curriculum vitae
    of the European Union, you must be a national of one of                         is not regarded as a supporting document.
    the Member States (unless the appointing authority makes an
    exception in your favour) and enjoy your full rights as a citizen.
    You must also have fulfilled any obligations imposed by the laws            (f) The fact that a candidate has not been admitted to a
    concerning military service and meet the character requirements                 given competition does not prevent his candidature
    for the duties involved.                                                        from being taken into consideration for another.
 ---pagebreak--- 17.7.2002            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 171 A/5
4.   Written tests                                                          (c) During the test, the selection board will also assess
                                                                                knowledge of other official languages of the Euro-
     (a) The organisation of the written tests depends on the                   pean Union by asking the candidate to reply to
         examination rooms available in the various Member                      questions in a language or languages other than his/
         States. The place where candidates are invited to                      her main language.
         attend depends on their country of residence. Some-
         times, however, the tests are held only in Luxem-
         bourg or in some other convenient place.                      6.   Reserve list
     (b) Candidates invited to attend the written tests are                 (a) Once the selection board has completed its deliber-
         given full details of the date, time and place of the                  ations, it draws up a list of candidates deemed
         tests.                                                                 suitable for the posts to be filled. In accordance with
                                                                                the Staff Regulations every attempt is made to
     (c) A flat-rate contribution is made towards the travel-                   ensure that the number of candidates on the list
         ling expenses of candidates who have to travel                         exceeds the number of posts available.
         further than 300 kilometres (one way) to the
         examination centre. It is stressed that this is a flat-            (b) Candidates are informed by letter whether or not
         rate contribution and not full reimbursement of the                    they have been placed on the list of suitable
         travelling expenses.                                                   candidates.
                                                                            (c) Candidates should note that inclusion on the
     (d) The written tests will take place simultaneously for
                                                                                reserve list does not necessarily lead to appoint-
         all candidates at all the centres on the date indicated
                                                                                ment.
         in the letter of invitation to attend. No exception to
         this can be allowed.                                                   The list is known as the ‘reserve list’ because it is on
                                                                                the basis of that list that successful candidates may
     (e) Irrespective of the type of diploma or certificate                     be offered a post. Offers are made depending on
         required for admission to a given competition,                         requirements and the availability of posts commen-
         candidates should note that the written and oral                       surate with the qualifications of the successful
         tests presuppose a thorough knowledge of the                           candidates.
         subject(s) or area(s) described in the notice of
         competition (Section I. Nature of duties). The                         However, in view of budgetary and operational
         specialised knowledge needed to pass the tests                         constraints, successful candidates should note that
         should not therefore be underestimated.                                some time many elapse between being placed on
                                                                                the reserve list and receiving a definite job offer.
     (f) The test papers are not identified by the candidates’                  In addition, reserve lists may be used to take
         names and so there is no possibility of candidates’                    on temporary or auxiliary staff depending on the
         being identified by the examiners or the selection                     budgetary funds available.
         board.
                                                                            (d) Successful candidates must also undergo a medical
     (g) After the written and/or typewritten tests have been                   examination as laid down in the Staff Regulations in
         marked, the selection board draws up the list of                       order to make sure they are physically fit to perform
         candidates who are to be invited to attend for the                     the duties in question.
         oral test.
                                                                            (e) Before the successful candidates are appointed as
                                                                                probationary officials, a check will be carried out to
                                                                                ensure that they:
5.   Oral test
                                                                                —    are nationals of one of the Member States of
     (a) Candidates are given details of the date, time and                          the European Union and enjoy their full rights
         place of the oral test in the letter inviting them to                       as citizens,
         attend. Oral tests are normally held in Luxembourg.
         Candidates will be given a contribution towards their                  —    have fulfilled any obligations imposed on them
         travelling and subsistence expenses as determined by                        by the laws concerning military service in the
         the rules applicable to the Court.                                          country of which they are nationals,
     (b) Most of the interview will be conducted in the                         —    meet the character requirements for the duties
         candidate’s main language and simultaneous                                  involved,
         interpretation is available if necessary.
                                                                                —    satisfy the requirements as to physical fitness
         The purpose of the oral test is to assess, first, the                       for the duties to be performed (medical examin-
         candidate’s professional knowledge and, secondly,                           ation),
         his fitness to carry out in an institution of the
         European Union the duties attached to the category                     —    have produced the originals of their diplomas
         of post for which the competition was held.                                 or certificates.
 ---pagebreak--- C 171 A/6              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    17.7.2002
   D.    CAREER PROGRESSION AND WORKING CONDITIONS                              (d) Category D: staff who have completed the basic
                                                                                course of ‘compulsory’ and/or vocational education
                                                                                and obtained a certificate or diploma, engaged
                                                                                in manual or service duties (messenger, driver,
                                                                                storeman, workshop staff, etc.)
1.    Categories of post
                                                                                Category D runs from grade D 4 up to D 1.
      All posts in the institutions of the European Union,
      whether permanent or temporary, are classified as fol-                        Category D breaks down as follows: D 4 (Unskilled
      lows.                                                                         employee, Unskilled worker), D 3/D 2 (Skilled
                                                                                employee, Skilled worker), and D 1 (Head of Unit).
      (a)  Category A: staff who have completed a course
           of university education and obtained a degree or                     (e) Officials other than those in grades A 1 and
           diploma, engaged in administrative and advisory                          A 2 serve a probationary period, which must be
           duties in areas of activity falling within the com-                      satisfactorily completed before they can be estab-
           petence of departments of the institutions.                              lished.
           Category A runs from grade A 8 up to A 3 and is                          The period is nine months for officials in category A,
           divided into four career brackets: A 8 (Assistant                        the Language Service and category B, and six months
           Administrator), A 7/A 6 (Administrator), A 5/A 4                         for other officials.
           (Principal Administrator) and A 3 (Head of Division).
           Language service (LA): staff who have completed a
           course of university education and obtained a degree            2.   Remuneration and other special conditions
           or diploma, working as translators and/or
           interpreters; the LA structure corresponds to grades
           A 8 to A 3 of category A above.                                      (a) Salary: the basic monthly salary for the career
                                                                                bracket covered by the competition is given in
           The Language Service comprises four career                               the notice of competition. The basic salary varies
           brackets: LA 8 (Assistant translator, Assistant                          according to step classification on recruitment.
           interpreter), LA 7/LA 6 (Lawyer-linguist/interpreter),
           LA 5/LA 4 (Reviser, Principal Lawyer-linguist, Princi-               (b) Allowances: in addition to basic salary, the person
           pal interpreter) and LA 3 (Head of Translation or                        appointed will receive the allowances to which he/
           Interpretation Division).                                                she is entitled under the Staff Regulations. These
                                                                                may include the following:
           NB: The linguistic duties specified above require a
           perfect command of mother tongue or main
           language and a good knowledge of at least two other                      1.    daily subsistence allowance (payable for a lim-
           official languages of the European Union.                                      ited period);
      (b) Category B: staff who have completed a course of                          2.    expatriation allowance or foreign residence
           advanced secondary education and obtained a final                              allowance equivalent to 16 % and 4 % of basic
           certificate or diploma, engaged in executive duties                            salary respectively;
           (comparable with those performed by an executive
           officer, administrative assistant, etc.).                                and the following family allowances:
           Category B runs from grade B 5 up to B 1.                                1.    household allowance equivalent to 5 % of basic
                                                                                salary;
           Category B breaks down as follows: B 5/B 4
           (Administrative assistant), B 3/B 2 (Senior adminis-
           trative assistant), and B 1 (Principal administrative                    2.    monthly dependent child allowance;
           assistant).
                                                                                3.    education allowance equal to actual education
      (c)  Category C: staff who have completed a course of                               costs incurred, with a monthly ceiling, for each
           secondary education and/or a course of vocational                              dependent child.
           education at secondary level and obtained a certifi-
           cate or diploma, engaged in clerical duties (compar-                 (c) Deductions: officials qualify for a pension scheme
           able with those performed by a secretary, filling                        and sickness and accident insurance. Officials’ con-
           clerk, technician, etc.).                                                tributions to these schemes are deducted from their
                                                                                remuneration.
           Category C runs from grade C 5 up to C 1.
           Category C breaks down as follows: C 5/C 4 (Clerical                 (d) Taxes: the remuneration of officials of the European
           assistant, Typist), C 3/C 2 (Clerical officer, Secretary/                Communities is subject to a tax deducted at source.
           typist), and C 1 (Executive secretary, Principal sec-                    The proceeds of the tax are paid into the budget of
           retary, Principal clerical officer).                                     the European Union.
 ---pagebreak--- 17.7.2002           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 171 A/7
         The overall amount of the tax raised reduces the               (e) Social environment: there are European Schools at
         financial contribution of the Member States to the                 most of the main places of activity of the Com-
         budget of the European Union accordingly. For that                 munity institutions, providing primary and second-
         reason, under Article 13(2) of the Protocol on                     ary education up to the level of the European
         the Privileges and Immunities of the European                      baccalaureate. The Schools, which have sections for
         Communities, remuneration is exempt from                           each of the main teaching languages, are recognised
         national tax.                                                      by all 15 Member States. There are also crèches for
                                                                            children under school age.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 3 June 1997 in Case T-58/96: Partex - Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Case not proceeding to judgment)

text:
26 . 7 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 228/ 15
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Garcia-Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
                       of 28 May 1997                                Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 3 June
                                                                     1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
in Case T-145/95 : Proderec — Formação e Desenvolvi
mento de Recursos Humanos, ACE v. Commission of the                  1 . There is no need to give a decision.
                  European Communities (')
(Action for annulment — Contested measure withdrawn                  2. The defendant shall pay the costs.
in the course of proceedings — No need to give a
                             decision)                               H OJ No C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .
                           97/C 228/31 )
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In Case T-145/95 : Proderec — Forma^ao e Desenvolvi                 Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Jill Valerie Hanna
mento de Recursos Humanos, ACE, whose registered                           against the Commission of the European Communities
office is in Almada ( Portugal ), represented by Manuel                                           ( Case T-117/97)
Rodrigues, of the Lisbon Bar, against Commission of the                                              ( 97/C 228/33 )
European Communities ( Agents : initially Ana Maria Alves
Vieira and Giinter Wilms, subsequently Maria Teresa                                     (Language of the case: French)
Figueira and Knut Simonsson ) — application for the
annulment, under Article 173 of the EC Treaty, of a                  An action against the Commission of the European
 Commission decision notified to the applicant by a letter           Communities was brought before the Court of First
of 11 May 1995 amending and reducing the amount                      Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1997
initially approved and granted by an earlier decision                by Jill Valerie Hanna, residing at Kraainem ( Belgium ),
 approving File Nos 881311 PI and 880249 P3 — the                    represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
 Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of K.           address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
 Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H.           ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange .
Jung, Registrar, made an order on 28 May 1997, the
 operative part of which is as follows :                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
 1 . There is no need to give a decision.                            — annul the Commission's decision of 12 June 1996
                                                                             rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                             consideration to the possible application of
 2 . The Commission shall pay the costs.                                     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
 O OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                    — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
                                                                             decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
                                                                             rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                      — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                         of 3 June 1997
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 in Case T-58/96: Partex — Companhia Portuguesa de Ser               Case T-16/97 ( ! ).
  viços SA v. Commission of the European Communities (')
               (Case not proceeding to judgment)                      ( 5 ) OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                          ( 97/C 228/32
               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
 In Case T-58/96: Partex — Companhia Portuguesa de Ser               Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Richardus
 vi^os SA, having its registered office in Lisbon, represented        Ritterbeeks against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
 by Rui Chancerelle de Machete, Pedro Machete and
 Miguel Pena Machete, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address                                           ( Case T-l 18/97 )
 for service in Luxemburg at the Chambers of Louis                                                     97/C 228/34 )
 Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, against Commission of
 the European Communities (Agents: Francisco de Sousa                                    (Language of the case: French)
 Fialho and Knut Simonsson ) — application for the
 annulment of the decision by which the Commission                    An action against the Commission of the European
 approved the request for payment of the balance relating              Communities was brought before the Court of First
 to File 88 0412 P3 of the European Social Fund — the                  Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1997
 Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: R.             by Richardus Ritterbeeks, residing at Landgraaf


title: Action brought on 5 July 1995 by Georges Cantone against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-139/95)

text:
 L 9 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 229/25
Action brought on 5 July 1995 by Georges Cantone against             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       the Commission of the European Communities
                       ( Case T-139/95 )                             The applicant, an official of the European Parliament of
                         ( 95/C 229/54 )                             Danish nationality, receives family allowances for her three
                                                                     children under Danish legislation. Taking the view that
                (Language of the case: French)                       those allowances should be regarded as of the same nature
                                                                     as those payable in accordance with Annex VII to the
An action against the Commission of the European                     Staff Regulations, the Parliament initially deducted the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    corresponding amount from the applicant's salary. By letter
Instance of the European Communities on 5 July 1995 by               of 1 December 1994 , and purportedly on the basis of a
Georges Cantone, resident in Luxembourg, represented by              'change in practice', the appointing authority decided to
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and                cease applying the non-aggregation rule to the allowances in
Veronique Leclercq, all of the Brussels Bar, with an address         dispute with effect from 1 May 1993 and consequently to
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson         reimburse to the applicant the amounts unduly levied since
                                                                     that date .
Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          The applicant claims that she is also entitled to
                                                                     reimbursement of the amounts unduly deducted before May
— annul, so far as may be necessary, the confirmatory                1993 . In that connection she claims that the 'change in
    decision of 19 December 1994 and the decision of                 practice' which gave rise to the contested decision derives
    17 May 1995 expressly rejecting the applicant's                  from the fact that the Parliament itself had realized that, by
    complaint,                                                       treating the allowances payable under the Danish legislation
                                                                     in question, which are of a fiscal nature, on the same basis as
— annul the Commissions' decision of 4 November 1994,
                                                                     the family allowances under Annex VII to the Staff
    fixing Luxembourg as the applicant's place of                    Regulations, which are social in nature, it had committed a
    recruitment,
                                                                     manifest error of assessment. To set a temporal limit on the
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             reimbursement of the amounts unduly deducted is therefore
                                                                     unreasonable .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The applicant further maintains that, by adopting the
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in          contested decision, the European Parliament acted contrary
Case T-33/95 I 1 ).                                                  to the principles of equal treatment and of
                                                                     non-discrimination between officials .
H OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 , p . 14 .
Action brought on 5 July 1995 by Kirsten Schelbeck against
                   the European Parliament
                       ( Case T-141 /95 )                            Action brought on 6 July 1995 by Werner Haberer against
                                                                     the Council of the European Union and the Commission of
                          ( 95/C 229/55 )                                             the European Communities
                (Language of the case: French)                                             ( Case T-143/95 )
                                                                                95/C 229/56
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 5 July 1995 by Kirsten Schelbeck, residing                           (Language of the case: German)
in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
Demaseure and Veronique Leclercq, of the Brussels Bar,               An action against the Council of the European Union and
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of          the Commission of the European Communities was brought
Fiduciaire Myson Sarl, 1 Rue Glesener.                               before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 6 July 1995 by Werner Haberer, Riegel
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented by Bernd
— annul the decision of the European Parliament refusing             Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Frank
    the applicant reimbursement of the amounts unlawfully            Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Münster,
    deducted from the family allowances to which she was             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
    entitled with respect to the period from 1 November              of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains.
     1987 to 30 April 1993 ,
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the implied decision of 1 July 1995 rejecting her
    complaint,
                                                                       1 . order the defendants to pay to the applicant SLOM I
— order the Parliament to pay the costs.                                   compensation for the period from 30 November 1985


title: Case C-330/01 P: Appeal brought on 4 September 2001 by Hortiplant SAT against the judgment delivered on 14 June 2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-143/99 between Hortiplant SAT and Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 303/12              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         27.10.2001
    (g)   licence extracts were subsequently applied for, and           7.    In the circumstances referred to in paragraphs 33 to 35
          granted, on the basis that only 2,9 tonnes had earlier              above, is a penalty under Article 3 of Regulation 2670/81
          been authorized for export;                                         properly levied?
    (h) each subsequent licence extract was duly attributed             (1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September
          and endorsed and all sugar tonnages so noted were                 1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar
          in fact exported;                                                 production in excess of the quota (OJ L 262, 16.9.1981, p. 14).
                                                                        (2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 of 16 November
                                                                            1988 laying down common detailed rules for the application of
                                                                            the system of import and export licences and advance fixing
    (i)   in the result, 2 897,1 tonnes of sugar were exported              certificates for agricultural products (OJ L 331, 2.12.1988, p. 1).
          in excess of the volume authorized in the original
          licence.
4.  Does Article 24 of the Regulation 3719/88 (2) enable the
    competent authority to withdraw the extract or the
    licence or certificate as well as any extracts previously
    issued and require the competent authority to issue
    without delay a corrected licence or extract or any                 Appeal brought on 4 September 2001 by Hortiplant SAT
    attribution thereto in circumstances where:                         against the judgment delivered on 14 June 2001 by the
                                                                        Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-143/99 between Horti-
                                                                        plant SAT and Commission of the European Communities
    (a)   there is no obvious or manifest error on the face of
          the licence or extract itself and where there has been
          no error on the part of the issuing agency; and/or                                       (Case C-330/01 P)
                                                                                (2001/C 303/20)
    (b) the amendment is sought to be made after the expiry
          of the validity of the relevant extract or head licence?
                                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 June 2001 by
                                                                        the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
    (c)   does it make a difference if the trader intended to           European Communities in Case T-143/99 between Hortiplant
          apply for a licence extract (from a licence already           SAT and the Commission of the European Communities
          issued) in respect of a quantity greater than that for        was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
          which he called off;                                          Communities on 4 September 2001 by Hortiplant SAT,
                                                                        represented by C. Fernández Vicién and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas,
                                                                        abogadas, with an address for service at 60 Avenue de
                                                                        Cortenbergh, 1000 Brussels.
5.  If the answers to the above questions are negative, do the
    provisions of Article 24 of Commission Regulation
    3719/88 infringe the Community law principles of
    proportionality and/or equality in that the absence of any          The appellant claims that the Court should:
    power to amend the head licence, licence extract or
    attributes thereto may, in the circumstances referred to
    above, lead to the imposition of a fine under Article 3 of          1.    declare the present case admissible and founded;
    Commission Regulation 2670/81?
                                                                        2.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                              14 June 2001 and give a final decision on the dispute;
6.  (a)   Does the national court and/or the national auth-
          ority have a discretion to vary (downwards) the               3.    in the alternative, send the case back to the Court of First
          amount of the penalty to be imposed under Article 3                 Instance for judgment in accordance with the decision of
          of Commission Regulation 2670/81?                                   the Court of Justice on points of law;
                                                                        4.    in any event, order the Commission of the European
    (b) If so, are there any factors in this case which the                   Communities to pay all the costs arising from these
          Court regards as relevant to the exercise of that                   proceedings, including those incurred as a result of
          discretion?                                                         proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.10.2001            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 303/13
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                1995, which, in its view, is not in compliance with the
                                                                               applicable legislation inasmuch as it became possible to
                                                                               make payments to recipients who in 1996 would have
Infringement of Article 24 of Regulation No 4253/88, in                        not been entitled to such additional payments. The
particular of the procedure laid down therein so far as concerns               Kingdom of Spain does not share that view. The need to
the request that the Member State concerned submit its                         supplement payments before 15 October 1996 prompted
comments within a specified period of time prior to the                        the Kingdom of Spain to make use of the derogation
adoption of by the Commission of a decision to reduce,                         provided for by Article 5 of Regulation No 1357/96, to
suspend or cancel assistance. When applying that provision,                    which end, appropriate objective criteria were laid down
the Court of First Instance not only failed to be faithful to its              in the aforementioned Ministerial Order. Thus, when
letter and spirit, which is based on the close cooperation                     granting the additional assistance provided for in Regu-
between Commission and Member State in the management                          lation No 1357/96, the Kingdom of Spain resorted to
and assessment of assistance granted, it also completely                       the derogation provided for in Article 5, so that the
ignored Community case-law which has considered para-                          requirements set down in Articles 1 and 2 did not apply.
mount the views of Member States in similar circumstances.                     In particular, that exonerated it from the obligation of
                                                                               carrying out the adjustments provided for in Article 1(3).
                                                                               That means that, contrary to the arguments of the
                                                                               Commission, there are no grounds for recovery of
                                                                               amounts paid to beneficiaries in 1996, given that Article 5
                                                                               provides that application of that article precludes that of
                                                                               Articles 1 to 4.
                                                                        —      Failure of the Commission to observe the time limits
Action brought on 6 September 2001 by Kingdom of                               regarding notification prescribed by the applicable Com-
Spain against Commission of the European Communities                           munity provisions: The expenditure which is the subject
                                                                               of the financial adjustment contested in the present action
                        (Case C-331/01)                                        was incurred by the Kingdom of Spain prior to the
                                                                               24 months provided for by Article 7(4) of Council
                                                                               Regulation 1258/99 (5) which preceded the communi-
                        (2001/C 303/21)                                        cation in writing by the Commission to the Member State
                                                                               concerned of the results of such inquiries.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        (1) OJ 2001 L 200, p. 28.
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        (2) at issue is an adjustment amounting to ESP 185 046 088 referring
Communities on 6 September 2001 by the Kingdom of Spain,                    to additional payments to beef producers as a result of the bovine
represented by Mónica López-Monı́s Gallego, Abogado del                   spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis.
Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                 (3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1357/96 of 8 July 1996 providing
Luxembourg.                                                                 for additional payments to be made in 1996 with the premiums
                                                                            referred to in Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common
                                                                            organization of the market in beef and veal and amending that
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Regulation. OJ L 175, 13.7.1996, p. 9.
                                                                        (4) BOE (Boletin del Estado) 228 of 20 September 1996 of the
                                                                            Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación.
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 11 July 2001 (1)          (5) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the
      excluding from Community financing certain expenditure                financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160,
      incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee                     p. 103).
      Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
      Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) so far as concerns the financial
      adjustments imposed on the Kingdom of Spain and
      challenged in the present application (2);
—     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
                                                                        Action brought on 7 September 2001 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Council of the
                                                                                European Union
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-338/01)
—     Compliance with applicable Community legislation on                                          (2001/C 303/22)
      the granting of additional assistance: In the Commissions
      view, additional BSE payments in the Kingdom of Spain
      in 1996 under Council Regulation No 1357/96 (3), made             An action against the Council of the European Union was
      in accordance with the Ministerial Order of 19 September          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
      1996 (4), were based on the applications submitted in             ties on 7 September 2001 by the Commission of the European


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 January 2003 in Case T-181/01: Chantal Hectors v European Parliament (Officials — Temporary staff — Recruitment — Grounds — Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment of men and women)

text:
C 70/22                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            22.3.2003
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Rechtsanwalt, against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties (Agent: J. Currall) and European Parliament (Agents:
                         of 23 January 2003                                 U. Rösslein and L. G. Knudsen) — application for the
                                                                            annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 28 May 2001
in Case T-181/01: Chantal Hectors v European Parlia-                        refusing to apply to the applicant’s pension the coefficient
                                ment ( 1)                                   applicable to recipients of a Community pension resident in
                                                                            Germany pursuant to Article 82 of the Staff Regulations —
(Officials — Temporary staff — Recruitment — Grounds                        the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:
— Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment of men                     B. Vesterdorf, President, R. M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal,
                             and women)                                     Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 11 December
                                                                            2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                           (2003/C 70/35)
                                                                            1.    The application is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            2.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
In Case T-181/01: Chantal Hectors, residing in Brussels,                    (1 ) OJ C 156 of 29.6.02.
represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats, against
European Parliament (Agents: H. von Hertzen and J. F. de
Wachter) — application, in the first place, for annulment of
the decisions taken by the authority empowered to conclude
contracts of employment appointing Mr B to the post of
Dutch-language administrator in the European People’s Party                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(Christian Democrats) and European Democrats Group within
the European Parliament and rejecting the applicant’s candi-
dature for that post and, second, for an order that the                                             of 16 January 2003
Parliament pay compensation in respect of the material and
non-material damage which the applicant claims to have                      in Case T-201/02: Pierre Tomarchio v Court of Auditors
suffered — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),                                    of the European Communities ( 1)
composed of: J. D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and
P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator,             (Officials — Refusal by the parent institution of an official
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 January 2003,                 to reclassify him — Action for annulment brought against
the operative part of which is as follows:                                  the institution to which he was transferred — Inadmissible)
1.     The application is dismissed;                                                                  (2003/C 70/37)
2.     The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.01.
                                                                            In Case T-201/02: Pierre Tomarchio, a former official of the
                                                                            European Communities, residing in Nancy (France), represent-
                                                                            ed by N. Lhoëst, avocat, with an address for service in
                                                                            Luxembourg, against Court of Auditors of the European
                                                                            Communities (Agents: J.-M. Stenier and P. Giusta) — appli-
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 cation for annulment of the measure adopted by the Court of
                                                                            Auditors on 26 February 2002 in connection with the
                       of 11 December 2002                                  applicant’s request for reclassification — the Court of First
                                                                            Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, Presi-
in Case T-82/02: Wolf-Dieter Yorck von Wartenburg v                         dent, R. M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung,
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                         Registrar, has made an order on 16 January 2003, the operative
                                                                            part of which is as follows:
(Officials — Period within which an action must be brought
                    — Manifest inadmissibility)                             1.    The application is dismissed as being inadmissible.
                           (2003/C 70/36)                                   2.    The applicant’s request for joinder of Cases T-173/02 and
                                                                                T-201/02 is rejected.
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            3.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
In Case T-82/02: Wolf-Dieter Yorck von Wartenburg, a former                 (1 ) OJ C 233 of 28.9.02.
temporary agent of the European Parliament, residing in
Wittibreut (Germany), represented by H.-H. R. Heyland,


3 . 2 . 96            EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 31 / 17
        Removal from the register of Case C-82/94 ( )                 from the register of Case C-56/95 : Briihler Kreditbank eG v.
                                                                      Finanzamt Briihl .
                           ( 96/C 31 /35 )
By order of 24 October 1995 the President of the Court of             (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-82/94 : Andreas Mohringer v.
Zentrale zur Bekampfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV
( ) OJ No C 120 , 30. 4 . 1994 .                                             Removal from the register of Case C-86/95 (')
                                                                                ( 96/C 31 /38 )
                                                                      By order of 15 November 1995 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-108/94 ( )                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-86/95 : Commission of the
                           ( 96/C 31 /36 )                            European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
By order of 27 October 1995 the President of the Court of             (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-108/94 : Commission of the
European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
(') OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-101/95 ( )
                                                                                96 /C 3 1 /3 9
                                                                      By order of 18 October 1995 the President of the Court of
        Removal from the register of Case C-56/95 ( )                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           ( 96/C 31 /37 )                            from the register of Case C-101 /95 : Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
By order of 18 October 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               (•) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               legal persons who are members of that association and
                                                                      whose names are included on the list annexed to the
                       ( Third Chamber)
                                                                      judgment, and Nederlandse Bond van Waaghouders van
                   of 13 December 1995                                Levend Vee, along with the natural and legal persons who
in Joined Cases T-481 /93 and T-484/93 Vereniging van                 are members of that association and whose names are
Exporteurs in Levende Varkens and Nederlandse Bond van                included on the list annexed to the judgment, having their
Waaghouders van Levend Vee v. Commission of the                       registered offices in Roosendaal (Netherlands ), represented
                 European Communities ( ] )                           by Inne Cath, of the Hague Bar, with an address for service
(Live pigs — Commission Decisions 93/128/EEC and                      in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lambert Dupong,
93/1 77/EEC concerning certain protection measures, with              14 Rue des Bains, against Commission of the European
regard to swine vesicular disease, in the Netherlands and             Communities ( Agents : Thomas van Rijn, Tom Ottervanger
Italy — Actions for annulment — Actions for                           and Harold Nyssens ) — application for the annulment of
                                                                      Commission Decisions 93/128/EEC and 93/1 77/EEC, of
                          compensation)
                                                                      26 February 1993 and 26 March 1993 respectively,
                           ( 96/C 31 /40 )                            concerning certain protection measures with regard to
                                                                      swine vesicular disease in the Netherlands and Italy ( OJ
                                                                      1993 No L 50 , p. 29 , and OJ 1993 No L 74, p. 88 ), and for
                                                                      the award of damages — the Court of First Instance ( Third
               (Language of the cases: Dutch)                         Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briet, acting as President,
                                                                      C. W. Bellamy and J. Azizi, Judges; B. Pastor,
                                                                      Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       13 December 1995 , in which it :
In Joined Cases T-481 /93 and T-484/93 : Vereniging van
Exporteurs in Levende Varkens, along with the natural and              1 . dismisses the applications;


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 25 October 1996 in Case T-26/96: Orlando Lopes v. Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials - Action for annulment of measures - Act adversely affecting an official - Action for damages - Inadmissible)

text:
7 . 12 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 370 / 13
Lille Bar, against Council of the European Union ( Agents:             1 . the action is dismissed as inadmissible;
Arthur Brautigam and Jan-Peter Hix), supported by
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Gerard                  2 . the applicant is ordered to pay all the costs.
Rozet) — application for annulment of Council Regulation
( EC ) No 1868/94 of 27 July 1994 establishing a quota                 (') OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
system in relation to the production of potato starch ( OJ
No L 197, 30 . 7. 1994, p. 4 ) — the Court of First Instance
( Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, and
P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
7 November 1996, in which it:                                                         ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                                                                                OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible;                                                  of 21 October 1996
                                                                       in Case T-107/96 R: Pantochim SA v. Commission of the
2 . orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of                                   European Communities
     the Council;
                                                                       (State aid — Administrative procedure pending —
3.   orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                      Application for an injunction requiring the Commission to
                                                                       direct a Member State to modify the conditions for the
(!) OJ No C 331 , 26 . 11 . 1994 .
                                                                       grant of aid — Injunction involving a measure beyond the
                                                                           Commission 's powers — Dismissal of the application)
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/30 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 25 October 1996                             In Case T-107/96 R : Pantochim SA, established at Feluy
                                                                       ( Belgium ), represented by Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, of the
in Case T-26/96: Orlando Lopes v. Court of Justice of the              Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                  European Communities (^                              the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11              rue Goethe, v.
(Officials — Action for annulment of measures — Act                    Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Gerard
adversely affecting an official — Action for damages —                 Rozet and Herve Lehman ) — application for an interim
                             Inadmissible)                             measure requiring the Commission to direct France , in a
                                                                       procedure pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 93 ( 2 )
                            ( 96/C 370/29 )
                                                                       of the EC Treaty, to grant the applicant provisional
                                                                       exemption from duty on biodiesel for a quantity of 20 000
                (Language of the case: French)                         tonnes a year — the President of the Court of First Instance
                                                                       has made an order on 21 October 1996 , the operative part
In Case T-26/96 : Orlando Lopes, an official of the Court of           of which is as follows :
Justice of the European Communities, residing in
Luxembourg, represented by Marc Kleyr, of the                          1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at his Chambers, 17 Rue Louvigny, v. Court                  1.   Costs are reserved.
of Justice of the European Communities (Agents: Timothy
Millett and Aloyse May ) — application for annulment of a
memorandum of the Head of the Portuguese Translation
Division of the Court of Justice of 21 January 1994 and of a
document entitled 'Analysis of sample I' dated 29 June
 1995 , both of which documents were submitted by the                                 ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
defendant in response to written questions put by the Court                      OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of First Instance in Joined Cases T-547/93 and T-280/94                                         of 14 October 1996
Lopes v. Court of Justice; annulment of the decision of the
Registrar of the Court of Justice, communicated by                     in Case T-l 3 7/96 R: Valio Oy v. Commission of the
memorandum of 21 July 1995 , not to act on the applicant's                                   European Communities
request, submitted on 7 July 1995, seeking the cessation of             (Application for interim measures — Admissibility —
the alleged misuse of powers or authority; annulment of the             Common agricultural policy — Standards for spreadable
decision of the Court's complaints committee of 22 January             fats — Prohibition of the use of reserved sales descriptions
 1996 rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant on            — Application — Division of powers between the
 3 October 1995 ; and compensation for the material and                           Commission and the national authorities)
non-material damage which the applicant claims to have
suffered as a result of the conduct of the servants of the                                          ( 96/C 370/31 )
 Court of Justice — the Court of First Instance ( Second
 Chamber), composed of C. W. Bellamy, President, and H.                                (Language of the case: English)
Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung,
 Registrar, made an order on 25 October 1996, the operative            In Case T-l 37/96 R: Valio Oy, established at Helsinki,
part of which is as follows :                                           represented by Francis Herbert and Daniel M. Tomasevic,


title: Case T-222/01: Action brought on 20 September 2001 by SINAGA, Sociedade de Indústrias Agrícolas Açoreanas, SA against Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.11.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 331/27
Action brought on 21 September 2001 by ReiseBank AG                     In August 2001 the applicant made an application to inspect
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    the defendant’s files containing information on the fees and
                                                                        conditions applicable in the national investigations that were
                                                                        abandoned. The defendant refused that application in the
                         (Case T-216/01)                                contested decision.
                         (2001/C 331/44)                                In support of its claim the applicant submits that the defend-
                                                                        ant’s decision caused material and irreversible damage to its
                                                                        rights of defence. If it were not granted permission to carry
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        out a search, the defendant — as it said it intended to do —
                                                                        would adopt a decision to impose a fine closing the procedure,
                                                                        which would adversely affect the applicant. Furthermore the
                                                                        applicant has not made submissions on the unequal treatment
                                                                        it received in the context of the investigation and the decision
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               terminating the investigation would be adopted without the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              advisory committee and the College of Commissioners being
European Communities on 21 September 2001 by ReiseBank                  able to take advice on that unequal treatment. Even if the
AG, Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by Rechtsan-               financial penalty were to be annulled in court proceedings
wälte M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer.                                        subsequently, the applicant would still suffer irreversible
                                                                        damage.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        The applicant submits that the defendant is under a duty to
                                                                        disclose to the undertakings to which the procedure relates all
—     annul the defendant’s decision of 14 August 2001                  documents both favourable and adverse. On the basis that
      in Case COMP/E-1/37.919 — bank fees for currency                  there must be equality of arms, the defendant must on no
      exchange in the Euro zone: Germany (Deutsche Ver-                 account be able to keep to itself information that is significant
      kehrsbank v Reisebank);                                           to the defence of the applicant. The documents which the
                                                                        applicant has asked to see are very likely to show that the
                                                                        applicant was treated unequally in comparison with other
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                             banks concerned by the procedure to which the procedure
                                                                        relates to its detriment. Finally, the request to see the docu-
                                                                        ments cannot under any circumstances be refused on the
                                                                        ground that they relate to commercial secrets or are internal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant buys from and sells to the public foreign
currencies, inter alia. At the beginning of 1999 the defendant
opened an investigation into approximately 150 banks in
various Member States on suspicion that the banks had, in               Action brought on 20 September 2001 by SINAGA,
anticipation of the introduction of the euro, agreed on the             Sociedade de Indústrias Agrı́colas Açoreanas, SA against
structure and level of exchange fees for euro currencies during                  Commission of the European Communities
the transitional period from 1 January 1999. That investigation
was later divided into individual procedures at national level.
                                                                                (Case T-222/01)
In August 2000 the defendant sent the applicant its objections                                  (2001/C 331/45)
to which the applicant responded.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In April and May 2001 the defendant announced that it had
abandoned the investigation into the Dutch, Belgian and some
of the German banks and justified that step by stating that             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
those banks had lowered their fees beforehand. In May 2001              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the applicant sent the defendant an offer to bring the                  European Communities on 20 September 2001 by SINAGA,
investigation to a close by amicable agreement, which was               Sociedade de Indústrias Agrı́colas Açoreanas, SA, whose
similar to a decrease in fees proposed by another bank. The             registered office is at Ponta Delgada, Açores, Rua de Lisboa,
defendant declined that offer and further attempts to bring the         n.o 75, represented by Dr. Mário Marques Mendes Prof.
investigation to a close by consent failed.                             Doutora Maria Luı́sa Duarte, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- C 331/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.11.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare the action to be admissible;
                                                                         —     annul the whole of the Commission’s decision of 11 July
—     annul the annex to Commission Regulation (EC)                            2001 relating to the system of State aid applied by Spain
      No 1281/2001 (1) in so far as it fixes the quantities                    to certain newly-created undertakings in Navarra (Spain),
      of sugar considered necessary to supply the Azores,
      maintaining in force the preceding situation;
                                                                         —     in the alternative, annul Article 3 of the decision on the
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                      ground that repayment of the aid is unjustified,
      pay all the costs.
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty (now Article 253
EC): manifestly inadequate and inconsistent statement of
reasons,                                                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Infringement of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992: the forecast supply
balance, drawn up by the Commission, does not take account               The applicant is challenging Commission Decision
of traditional trade flows,                                              C(2001)1762 final of 11 July 2001 in so far as it characterises
                                                                         as State aid incompatible with the common market the tax
                                                                         reductions under Articles 52 to 56 of the Ley Foral (Regional
Infringement of Article 227 of the EC Treaty (now, after                 Law) 24/1996 del impuesto sobre sociedades (Regional Law
amendment, Article 299 EC): failure to take account of the               on corporation tax) of 30 December 1996 (Boletı́n Oficial de
said provision when interpreting and applying legislative                Navarra No 159 of 31 December 1996) which provide for a
provisions applicable to the outermost regions,                          reduction of 50 % on the aforementioned tax for undertakings
                                                                         which take up business in the Autonomous Community of
Infringement of Article 4(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 7(1)          Navarra after the entry into force of that Law, provided they
EC): the Commission has exercised its executive powers in a              invest a minimum of ESP 100 million (EUR 601 012 ) and
manifestly abusive and unlawful manner,                                  create more than 10 new jobs.
Breach of the principle of proportionality: the effects of the
forecast made in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1281/2000                 According to the applicant, the contested decision wrongly
are unfair and unreasonable.                                             finds that the fiscal regime in question provides for aid within
                                                                         the meaning of Community law, given that they do not
(1) OJ L 176, 29.6.2001, p. 12.                                          comply with the requirements of Article 87 of the EC Treaty:
                                                                         (a)   State resources are not involved. A measure granting a
                                                                               fiscal reduction does not entail a reduction in State
                                                                               revenue, since that would imply that there is a homo-
                                                                               geneous tax debt for which all tax payers are liable.
Action brought on 24 September 2001 by Gobierno
Foral de Navarra against Commission of the European
                          Communities                                    (b) So far as concerns the charge that competition and trade
                                                                               are affected, there are a number of reasons for the view
                         (Case T-225/01)                                       that the Commission has not given an adequate reason
                                                                               for its finding:
                         (2001/C 331/46)
                                                                               —     The Commission has not given the reasons on which
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                its decision is based. Despite having in the file full
                                                                                details regarding the undertakings concerned, the
                                                                                decision contains no analysis whatever either of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                            competitive situation of the only two undertakings
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                           to which the reduction has been applied and the
European Communities on 24 September 2001 by Gobierno                                extent to which they are involved in intra-Com-
Foral de Navarra (Navarra Regional Government), Navarra                              munity trade or even of the economic sectors in
(Spain), represented by Marcos Araujo Boyd, lawyer.                                  which they operate.