Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

7.10.

2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 285/19

Action brought on 31 July 2000 by Agnès Ajour and The applicant claims that the Court should:
115 others against the Commission of the European
Communities — annul the express decision of the Commission of the
European Communities of 19 July 2000 refusing to apply
(Case T-201/00) Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations in relation
to him;
(2000/C 285/34) — rule that the applicant is to be re-assigned to a third
country by no later than 1 September 2000, in accord-
ance with Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations;
(Language of the case: French)
— order the Commission of the European Communities to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi- pay all the costs of the proceedings.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 31 July 2000 by Agnès Ajour and
115 others, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Pleas in law and main arguments
Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
The applicant, who is assigned to the Office for Official
The applicants claim that the Court should: Publications of the European Communities, is contesting the
decision rejecting the request submitted by him on 6 June
— annul the decisions of the Commission concerning the 2000, by which he applied to be assigned to a third country
drawing-up of the applicants’ pay slips for the months pursuant to Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of
from September to December 1999; officials. That request was rejected on the ground that the
applicant did not fall within the category of staff covered by
— order the defendant to pay the costs. the provision in question.

In support of his application, he maintains that the decision in


Pleas in law and main arguments
issue:

The applicants, who are seconded to the Office for Veterinary — infringes Articles 2 and 3 of Annex X to the Staff
and Plant-Health Inspection and Control in Dublin, are con- Regulations;
testing their pay slips for the months from September to
December 1999, maintaining that these were drawn up on the — infringes Article 2 of the Staff Regulations, as well as the
basis of the weighting for Ireland, which has been fixed principle of the hierarchy of appointing authorities and
without taking account of the cost of living in Dublin. They the principle of the hierarchy of norms;
claim that, by applying that illegal weighting for the purposes
of calculating their remuneration, the Commission has — infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate
infringed Articles 64 and 65a of the Staff Regulations of expectations;
officials, as well as the principles of equal treatment, reasonable
career prospects and freedom of movement for workers. — is vitiated by misuse of powers and abuse of process; and

— infringes Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.

Action brought on 1 August 2000 by Mario Costacurta


against the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 3 August 2000 by RENCO S.A. against
(Case T-202/00) the Council of the European Union

(2000/C 285/35) (Case T-205/00)

(Language of the case: French) (2000/C 285/36)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-


(Language of the case: French)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 August 2000 by Mario Costacur-
ta, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Marc Petit, of the An action against the Council of the European Union was
Luxembourg Bar. brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
C 285/20 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 7.10.2000

Communities on 3 August 2000 by RENCO S.A., established whether, upon the award of the contract in issue, the
in Milan (Italy), represented by Francesco Apruzzi, of the contracting authority did actually observe the conditions laid
Brussels Bar, and Denis Philippe, of the Luxembourg Bar. down for ensuring that the tender corresponded to the contract
specifications.

The applicant claims that the Court should:


(1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
coordination of procedures for the award of public works
contracts (OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54, as corrected by L 111 of
— annul the decision of the Council of the European
30.4.1994, p. 115).
Union of 4 July 2000, issued by letter from the General (2) Council Decision 93/371/EC of 20 December 1993 on public
Secretariat of the Council of the European Union, ref. access to Council documents (OJ L 340 of 31.12.1993, p. 43).
IMM-2000/3188-JB-pm;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay all the


costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments Action brought on 4 August 2000 by Merja Hult against
the Commission of the European Communities

The present action is directed against the decision of the (Case T-206/00)
Council of the European Union of 4 July 2000, issued by letter
from its General Secretariat (ref. IMM-2000/3188-JB-pm), (2000/C 285/37)
refusing to accede to the request made by the applicant
company for access to the administrative file concerning the
evaluation of tenders for the contract entitled ‘Installation and
maintenance works to be carried out in the buildings of the (Language of the case: French)
Council of the European Union (JO/S146-107865)’, from
which that company was excluded. An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 August 2000 by Merja Hult,
The contract in question, which was of a restricted nature, residing at Howald (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), represented
involved a study of, and the carrying-out and coordination of, by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
a general project for installation, alteration and maintenance
works in relation to the Council’s buildings. The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission fixing the appli-


The applicant points out that, when the tender bids were cant’s classification on recruitment in grade A 7, step 1;
opened by the committee evaluating the tenders, it appeared
that the lowest price for the provision of the works in question — order the defendant to pay the costs.
was that proposed by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments


The applicant company maintains, first, that the position
adopted by the Council is not in accordance with the policy of
openness and transparency introduced and pursued by the The applicant in the present case, who successfully passed
Community authorities since October 1992. It further states open competition EUR/A/123, contests the decision of the
that, so far as concerns Article 8 of Directive 93/37/EEC (1), as appointing authority classifying her in grade A 7, step 1, on
well as Decision 93/371/EC (2) and the Code of Conduct for her appointment as a category A official.
public access to documents, the defendant has not indicated
the precise provision and the interests needing to be protected In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:
which purportedly prevent it from communicating the docu-
ments requested to the applicant. By the same token, the — failure to comply with the obligation to provide a
Council has not stated any reasons as to why the contents of statement of reasons, infringement of the second para-
the administrative file might be covered by one of the graph of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations and breach
exceptions provided for in Article 8 of Directive 93/37/EEC of the decision concerning the criteria applicable to
and/or Decision 93/371/EC. appointment in grade and classification in step of Com-
mission officials on recruitment;

In those circumstances, the applicant is unable to assess the — the existence, in the present case, of a manifest error of
extent to which the decision at issue may be lawful or to verify assessment;