Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

28.8.

2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/33

According to the applicant, the creation of an intermediate the form of threats, intimidation and personal and professional
structure, Ainax, preserves the block of shares currently humiliation during the period in which the applicant was a
controlled by Volvo rather then dispersing it amongst the resident adviser to the Commission's Delegation to Guatemala.
shareholders of Volvo. The applicant furthermore submits that The conduct in question amounted to discrimination which
because Renault has an approximate 20 % shareholding in damaged his professional life and had serious effects on his
Volvo, Renault controls approximately 20 % of Ainax which in state of health.
turn controls approximately 25 % of Scania. The applicant
therefore submits that the divestment structure grants Renault,
and Volvo indirectly, a substantial influence over the applicant The refusal to accede to the application for assistance within
and a privileged inside knowledge of its business secrets. the meaning of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations should there-
According to the applicant, it is therefore not able to act as an fore be regarded as unlawful. The CDR for the period in ques-
independent alternative to the Volvo/Renault VI group. tion should also be regarded as unlawful.

(1) Commission Decision of 1 September 2000 declaring a concentra-


tion to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/
M.1980 - 3* VOLVO/RENAULT V.I.) according to Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 4064/89 (OJ C 301, p. 23).
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1990 L Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Philippe Combescot
257, p. 13). against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-250/04)

(2004/C 217/60)
Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Philippe Combescot
against the Commission of the European Communities
(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-249/04)

An action was a brought before the Court of First Instance of


(2004/C 217/59)
the European Communities on 21 June 2004 against the
Commission of the European Communities by Philippe
(Language of the case: Italian) Combescot, represented by Alberto Maritati and Viola Messa,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that Court of First Instance should:


An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 June 2004 by Philippe — declare illegal the decision rejecting his application to take
Combescot, represented by Alberto Maritati and Viola Messa, part in the competition for appointment to the post of
lawyers. Head of Delegation in Colombia covered by the vacancy
notice of 28 May 2003 (COM/091/03); accordingly, declare
the entire competition procedure and the consequent deci-
The applicant claims that the Court should: sion making an appointment to the post to which it related
void; recognise that Philippe Combescot has suffered
damage to his image and professional reputation, and that
— declare that the conduct of Mr Combescot's superiors and the illegal decision excluding him from the competition has
its effect on his professional life, career and therefore on his had serious adverse effects on the balance of his mind; and
state of health is absolutely unlawful and, in consequence award him the sum of EUR 100 000.00 as compensation
recognise the right to assistance laid down by Article 24 of for damage.
the Staff Regulations;

— declare the career development report (CDR) to be unlawful Pleas and main arguments adduced in support
as a result of the serious and irremediable enmity between
the applicant and his hierarchical superior; The applicant takes exception to the defendant's refusal to
admit to the competition procedure his application for the
— recognise Mr Cambescot's entitlement to compensation for vacant post of Head of Delegation for Colombia.
loss sustained, both for non-material damage and in respect
of his professional life and career, to be assessed in a sum
not less than EUR 1 000. In support, the applicant alleges:

— infringement of the terms of the vacancy notice, in that the


Pleas in law and main arguments: reason for which his application was purportedly refused
(the fact that he had not had two years' experience as a
The applicant in the present case alleges that he suffered as a Head of Unit) was not provided for in the said vacancy
result of the conduct of his immediate hierarchical superior in notice;
C 217/34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 28.8.2004

— breach of the principle of non-discrimination: applications Another part of the expenditure which was excluded from
by other officials in circumstances similar to those of the financing concerns the correction for failure to pay the
applicant were admitted to the procedure; minimum price to producers of peaches. On that point of the
contested decision, the Hellenic Republic acknowledges that
— defective statement of reasons and error of assessment, in producer organisations were paid directly rather than the
that it was not considered that the applicant's role and the processor, but cites exceptional circumstances which, in its
duties carried out by him, albeit under the formal title of view, justify that action, which it considers to be in keeping
Adviser resident in Guatemala, were B since he undertook with the aim of the common agricultural policy and the
tasks relating to the management of the Guatemala Delega- common organisation of the market, asserting further that this
tion on the basis of full managerial and economic did not occasion any harm. The Hellenic Republic maintains in
autonomy B equivalent to those of a Head of Unit. addition that the amount of the correction was wrongly calcu-
lated.

As regards the correction of 2 % in relation to the programme


for helping deprived persons, the Hellenic Republic alleges that
Action brought on 22 June 2004 by the Hellenic Republic Articles 1, 2 and 9 of Regulation No 3149/92 (1) were misinter-
against the Commission of the European Communities preted, that the circumstances were wrongly assessed, and that
there was inadequate reasoning.
(Case T-251/04)

(2004/C 217/61)
As regards the correction made to the three-year restructuring
(Language of the case: Greek) programme for fruit and vegetables, Greece alleges misinterpre-
tation of Article 2 of Regulation No 3816/92 (2), mistaken
assessment of the circumstances in the particular sense that
An action against the Commission of the European Commu- what was achieved within the three-year period had to be paid
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the for rather than what was functioning, just as restructuring
European Communities on 22 June 2004 by the Hellenic action had to be paid for; this took place six months after the
Republic, represented by V. Kontolaimos and I. Khalkias. end of the three-year period and was paid for in the first six-
month period of 2000.
The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 (OJ 2004 L


156, p. 47).
Lastly, the Hellenic Republic puts forward a general plea in
support of annulment concerning all parts of the contested
Pleas in law and main arguments decision, asserting that the Commission did not have the power
at the time to impose corrections for the periods at issue in
In the contested decision the Commission, in clearing the accordance with the provisions of Article 7(4) of Regulation
accounts in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 729/70, No 1258/99 (3), in conjunction with Article 8 of Regulation No
excluded from Community financing various expenditure 1663/1995 (4). These require that an evaluation of the expendi-
effected by the Hellenic Republic in the fruit and vegetables ture to be corrected must be contained in the communication
sector and in the sector of public storage, with the result that it under Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95 with a view to
is not recognised as legitimate Community expenditure and is calculating the 24-months preceding that communication in
chargeable to the Hellenic Republic. order for corrections to be imposed.

More specifically, certain of that expenditure relates to the


public storage of rice for the financial years 1999-2001. The (1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 of 29 October 1992
Commission cited as the reason for non-recognition the late laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention
bringing into intervention of part of the quantity of rice. In stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Com-
munity (OJ L 313 of 30.10.1992, p. 50).
support of its action against the part of the decision concerning 2
( ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3816/92 of 28 December 1992
that expenditure, the Hellenic Republic claims that the principle providing for, in the fruit and vegetables sector, the abolition of the
of proportionality was infringed by the Commission's refusal to compensation mechanism in trade between Spain and the other
recognise force majeure owing to a lorry-drivers' strike. It also Member States and allied measures (OJ L 387 of 31.12.1992, p.
10).
claims that the principle of protection of legitimate expecta- ( ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the
3
tions is infringed by reason of the failure of the Commission's financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 160 of
services to state the Commission's position on the notification 26.06.1999, p. 103).
4
that it was envisaged that the bringing into intervention would ( ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying
be late for reasons of force majeure. The Hellenic Republic also down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the
alleges inadequate reasoning on the particular question of accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ L 158 of 8.7.1995,
failure to keep within guidelines VI/5330/97 which provide for p. 6).
application of flat rate corrections when the actual level of the
irregular payments cannot be determined.