Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

C 378/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 5.12.

98

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicants, who import bananas from third countries, Ð annul the decision of 18 January 1988 downgrading
contest the Commission's decision to disregard, for the him from grade A 3 to grade A 7;
purposes of calculating the quantity of bananas which the
applicants may import in 1998, part of the quantity of
imported bananas declared by the applicants for the 1996 Ð order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
reference year. present proceedings and of all proceedings concerning
that decision;
They seek annulment of that decision on the following
grounds: Ð order the European Paliament:

Ð infringement of the second paragraph of Article 6 of Ð to pay over the guarantee fund relating to the
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93: the person concerned;
Commission did not inform the applicants prior to
1 November 1997 of the quantity of bananas allocated Ð to pay the applicant the difference in emoluments
to them; between grade A 3 and grade A 7, together with
the difference in pension;
Ð infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty: the
contested decision is not supported by a statement of Ð to pay compensation for the non-material loss
reasons; suffered by him.

Ð breach of the applicants' procedural rights: Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð breach of the rights of the defence, the right to a
fair hearing and the right of access to the The applicant states that, in the course of proceedings
documents in the file: the applicants were not brought by the Parliament against the Royale Belge
given access to the documents; the Commission insurance company before the Tribunal d'Arrondissement,
wrongly imposed on the applicants the burden of Luxembourg, in which it sought indemnification in respect
proof concerning the type of certificate used by of an alleged loss of funds, the Parliament's representative
their consignees in order to secure customs stated that the applicant was not responsible for the loss
clearance of the bananas; and the Commission of supporting documents Ð that being the main complaint
disregarded the evidential weight attaching to the on the basis of which the disciplinary measure was taken
contractual obligations to which the applicants' against him on 18 January 1988 Ð but for the loss of
consignees were subject; cash sums.

Ð infringement of Article 2 of Regulation No 1


The applicant maintains that that statement amounts to
regulating the use of languages in the European
a withdrawal of the main accusation which resulted
Economic Community;
in the imposition of the disciplinary measure by the
administrative authority which made that accusation. He
Ð breach of the principle of sound management and of considers, therefore, that that measure should be annulled.
the principle prohibiting arbitrary acts.

Action brought on 12 October 1998 by Giuseppe Carraro


Action brought on 5 October 1998 by Henri de Compte against the Commission of the European Communities
against the European Parliament
(Case T-164/98)
(Case T-161/98)
(98/C 378/41)
(98/C 378/40)

(Language of the case: French) (Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the European Parliament was brought An Action against the Commission of the European
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First
Communities on 5 October 1998 by Henri de Compte, Instance of the European Communities on 12 October
residing at Gravelotte (France), represented by Henri 1998 by Giuseppe Carraro, represented by Giuseppe
Ferretti, of the Thionville Bar, with an address for service Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Andre Lutgen, 1 Rue in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, Rue
J.-P. Brasseur. Mathias Hardt.
5.12.98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 378/23

The applicant claims that the Court should: The applicant claims that the Court should:

Ð annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty, the


Ð annul the applicant's staff report for the period 1993 decision of 24 September 1998 by which the
to 1995; Commission fixed the minimum price for the sale of
barley held by the Austrian intervention agency within
the context of the invitation to tender opened by
Ð order the Commission to pay compenation for non- Commission Regulation (EC) No 1666/98;
material damage in the amount of ECU 10 000.
Ð order the Commission to pay compensation for the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: damage suffered in the interim by the applicant, in
accordance with Articles 178 and 215 of the EC
Treaty;
The applicant, an official on the technical and scientific
staff assigned to the Joint Research Centre at Ispra, states Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the
that at least until some time ago, his staff reports were proceedings.
favourable, consistently acknowledging, in particular, his
professional abilities. However, as from the 1991 to 1993 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
staff report there began to appear negative comments with
regard to his character and his relations in the department, The applicant company, which participated in the above
which were all the more serious in the overall assessment invitation to tender and whose bid was rejected, takes
at the end of the staff report for the period 1993 to 1995. issue with the fact that the Commission, through the
contested decision, awarded the entire quantity subject to
tender exclusively on the basis of the criterion of the
He claims that, moreover, the abovementioned report was
lowest price', without, according to a fax sent by the
forwarded to him after the expiry of the period prescribed
defendant on 29 September 1998, transport costs having
by the general provisions for giving effect to Article 43 of
been taken into account in assessment of the tenders
the Staff Regulations.
submitted.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges, first of all, In support of its contentions, the applicant argues that
that the general provisions for giving effect to Article 43 there has been a breach of Article 1(2) of Commission
of the Staff Regulations were infringed inasmuch as the Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93 (1) along with an
report was late and the rules governing the complaints infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and
procedure were not followed. distortion of competition by reason of the illegality of
Article 3(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1666/
98 (2), under which the defendant opened a standing
Secondly, the assessment contained in the report was invitation to tender for the export of barley held by the
vitiated, in the applicant's view, by its manifest unfairness Austrian intervention agency.
and by misuse of powers.
It must be pointed out in this regard that under Article 7
of Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93, transport costs are
reimbursed by the intervention agency, which then charges
them to the Community. The most favourable bid referred
to in Article 1 cannot be represented solely by the price
offered by those participating in the call for tenders for
Action brought on 12 October 1998 by Grandi Molini obtaining the cereals in question, but rather by that price
SpA against the Commission of the European less transport costs in so far as both of these have an
Communities effect on Community finances. The applicant stresses in
this regard that if, in the case of the consignment of barley
(Case T-165/98)
in question, the Commission has subtracted the transport
(98/C 378/42) costs incurred for transport to Trieste from the price
which the applicant had tendered, its actual bid would
have been reduced by more than half. This means that if,
(Language of the case: Italian) in respect of the price tendered by whoever was ultimately
to be the successful tenderer, the transport costs were to
be calculated to Rotterdam, as lies within the entitlement
An action against the Commission of the European of the successful tenderer, the bid accepted would be much
Communities was brought before the Court of First less favourable than that of the applicant company.
Instance of the European Communities on 12 October Consequently, the applicant, on the basis of the matters of
1998 by Grandi Molini SpA, represented by Wilma which it has cognisance, concludes that the contested
Viscardini DonaÁ, assisted by Mariano Paolin and decision was taken on the basis of bids which are not
Simonetta DonaÁ, of the Padua Bar, with an address for comparable and thus allowed the contract to be awarded
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, without being certain that the successful bid was the most
Rue Mathias Hardt. favourable.