You are on page 1of 1

C 118/42 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21.4.

2001

Grounds submitted: — Infringement of Article 7(1)b The applicant states that, nearly four years after its complaint,
of Regulation n. 40/94. the Commission has not taken any provisional measure or
— Infringement of Article 7(3) of adopted a definitive decision, and that the contested system is
Regulation n. 40/94. therefore still being applied, even though it was accepted by
the Commission from the start of the procedure that it was
— Infringement of the appli- not consistent with Community law.
cant’s right of defence.

Action brought on 22 February 2001 by Syndicat des


employés, techniciens et cadres de la F.G.T.B. against
Commission of the European Communities Action brought on 23 February 2001 by Jean-Jacques
Rateau against the Commission of the European Com-
(Case T-42/01) munities

(2001/C 118/113) (Case T-43/01)

(Language of the case: French) (2001/C 118/114)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-


ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 February 2001 by Syndicat des (Language of the case: French)
employés, techniciens et cadres de la F.G.T.B., established in
Brussels, represented by Luc Misson, Laurent Denis and
Patrick Mbaya Kapita, Avocats, with an address for service in An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Luxembourg. ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 February 2001 by Jean-Jacques
Rateau, residing in Beersel (Belgium), represented by Eric
The applicant claims that the Court should: Boigelot, avocat, address for service in Luxembourg.

— Declare that the Commission failed to adopt the necessary


measures within a reasonable time following the appli- The applicant claims that the Court should:
cant’s complaint on the basis of Article 3 of Regulation
No 17;
— annul the decision of the appointing authority to assign
— Declare that the Commission is obliged to take the the applicant, with effect from 1 July 2000, to the post
necessary measures within one month against the parties of adviser on consumer information working to the Head
complained against in the applicant’s complaint pursuant of Unit Health and Consumer Protection SANCO.D.4
to Regulation No 17; ‘Food law and biotechnology’, as it emerges from the
organisational chart for DG SANCO of 15 June 2000 and
the explicit decision adopted on 1 August 2000 by
— Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Mr Robert Coleman, Director General of the Directorate-
General ‘Consumer policy and consumer health protec-
tion’, brought to the applicant’s notice on 28 August
Pleas in law and main arguments 2000;

The applicant states that on 1 July 1997 it lodged a complaint — order the defendant to pay to the applicant, as compen-
on the basis of Articles 48 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now sation for non-material damage, BEF 1 as provisional
Articles 39 EC and 81 EC) concerning the transfer system for damages in respect of injury assessed at BEF 10 000,
professional football players applied by organisations such as subject to increase or decrease in the course of proceed-
FIFA, URBSFA and the Ligue professionelle de Football de ings;
Belgique. Following that complaint, registered under
No IV/36.583-SETCA-FGTB/FIFA, URBSFA, the Commission
initiated a procedure against FIFA. — in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.