28.8.
2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union
According to the applicant, the creation of an intermediate
structure, Ainax, preserves the block of shares currently
controlled by Volvo rather then dispersing it amongst the
shareholders of Volvo. The applicant furthermore submits that
because Renault has an approximate 20 % shareholding in
Volvo, Renault controls approximately 20 % of Ainax which in
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
and a privileged inside knowledge of its business secrets.
According to the applicant, it is therefore not able to act as an
independent alternative to the Volvo/Renault VI group.
(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
257, p. 13).
Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Philippe Combescot
against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-249/04)
(2004/C 217/59)
(Language of the case: Italian)
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
Combescot, represented by Alberto Maritati and Viola Messa,
lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare that the conduct of Mr Combescot's superiors and
its effect on his professional life, career and therefore on his
state of health is absolutely unlawful and, in consequence
recognise the right to assistance laid down by Article 24 of
the Staff Regulations;
— declare the career development report (CDR) to be unlawful
as a result of the serious and irremediable enmity between
the applicant and his hierarchical superior;
— recognise Mr Cambescot's entitlement to compensation for
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.
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The applicant in the present case alleges that he suffered as a
result of the conduct of his immediate hierarchical superior in
C 217/33
the form of threats, intimidation and personal and professional
humiliation during the period in which the applicant was a
resident adviser to the Commission's Delegation to Guatemala.
The conduct in question amounted to discrimination which
damaged his professional life and had serious effects on his
state of health.
The refusal to accede to the application for assistance within
the meaning of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations should there-
fore be regarded as unlawful. The CDR for the period in ques-
tion should also be regarded as unlawful.
Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Philippe Combescot
against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-250/04)
(2004/C 217/60)
(Language of the case: French)
An action was a brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 21 June 2004 against the
Commission of the European Communities by Philippe
Combescot, represented by Alberto Maritati and Viola Messa,
lawyers.
The applicant claims that Court of First Instance should:
— declare illegal the decision rejecting his application to take
part in the competition for appointment to the post of
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-
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
the illegal decision excluding him from the competition has
had serious adverse effects on the balance of his mind; and
award him the sum of EUR 100 000.00 as compensation
for damage.
Pleas and main arguments adduced in support
The applicant takes exception to the defendant's refusal to
admit to the competition procedure his application for the
vacant post of Head of Delegation for Colombia.
In support, the applicant alleges:
— infringement of the terms of the vacancy notice, in that the
reason for which his application was purportedly refused
(the fact that he had not had two years' experience as a
Head of Unit) was not provided for in the said vacancy
notice;
C 217/34 EN Official Journal of the European Union
— breach of the principle of non-discrimination: applications
by other officials in circumstances similar to those of the
applicant were admitted to the procedure;
— defective statement of reasons and error of assessment, in
that it was not considered that the applicant's role and the
duties carried out by him, albeit under the formal title of
Adviser resident in Guatemala, were B since he undertook
tasks relating to the management of the Guatemala Delega-
tion on the basis of full managerial and economic
autonomy B equivalent to those of a Head of Unit.
Action brought on 22 June 2004 by the Hellenic Republic
against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-251/04)
(2004/C 217/61)
(Language of the case: Greek)
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 June 2004 by the Hellenic
Republic, represented by V. Kontolaimos and I. Khalkias.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 (OJ 2004 L
156, p. 47).
Pleas in law and main arguments
In the contested decision the Commission, in clearing the
accounts in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 729/70,
excluded from Community financing various expenditure
effected by the Hellenic Republic in the fruit and vegetables
sector and in the sector of public storage, with the result that it
is not recognised as legitimate Community expenditure and is
chargeable to the Hellenic Republic.
More specifically, certain of that expenditure relates to the
public storage of rice for the financial years 1999-2001. The
Commission cited as the reason for non-recognition the late
bringing into intervention of part of the quantity of rice. In
support of its action against the part of the decision concerning
that expenditure, the Hellenic Republic claims that the principle
of proportionality was infringed by the Commission's refusal to
recognise force majeure owing to a lorry-drivers' strike. It also
claims that the principle of protection of legitimate expecta-
tions is infringed by reason of the failure of the Commission's
services to state the Commission's position on the notification
that it was envisaged that the bringing into intervention would
be late for reasons of force majeure. The Hellenic Republic also
alleges inadequate reasoning on the particular question of
failure to keep within guidelines VI/5330/97 which provide for
application of flat rate corrections when the actual level of the
irregular payments cannot be determined.
28.8.2004
Another part of the expenditure which was excluded from
financing concerns the correction for failure to pay the
minimum price to producers of peaches. On that point of the
contested decision, the Hellenic Republic acknowledges that
producer organisations were paid directly rather than the
processor, but cites exceptional circumstances which, in its
view, justify that action, which it considers to be in keeping
with the aim of the common agricultural policy and the
common organisation of the market, asserting further that this
did not occasion any harm. The Hellenic Republic maintains in
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
Articles 1, 2 and 9 of Regulation No 3149/92 (1) were misinter-
preted, that the circumstances were wrongly assessed, and that
there was inadequate reasoning.
As regards the correction made to the three-year restructuring
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
what was achieved within the three-year period had to be paid
for rather than what was functioning, just as restructuring
action had to be paid for; this took place six months after the
end of the three-year period and was paid for in the first six-
month period of 2000.
Lastly, the Hellenic Republic puts forward a general plea in
support of annulment concerning all parts of the contested
decision, asserting that the Commission did not have the power
at the time to impose corrections for the periods at issue in
accordance with the provisions of Article 7(4) of Regulation
No 1258/99 (3), in conjunction with Article 8 of Regulation No
1663/1995 (4). These require that an evaluation of the expendi-
ture to be corrected must be contained in the communication
under Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95 with a view to
calculating the 24-months preceding that communication in
order for corrections to be imposed.
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 of 29 October 1992
laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention
stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Com-
munity (OJ L 313 of 30.10.1992, p. 50).
2
( ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3816/92 of 28 December 1992
providing for, in the fruit and vegetables sector, the abolition of the
compensation mechanism in trade between Spain and the other
Member States and allied measures (OJ L 387 of 31.12.1992, p.
10).
( ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the
3
financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 160 of
26.06.1999, p. 103).
4
( ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the
accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ L 158 of 8.7.1995,
p. 6).