Anda di halaman 1dari 1

28.8.

2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/31

The applicant claims that the Court should: Pleas in law and main arguments:
The applicant contests the defendant's decision not to consider
— Partially annul Commission Decision 2004/247/EC (1) her for a number of vacant posts. The applicant submits that
insofar as it concerns article 2 para 3 and article 3 sub b; the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment.
— Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
ings;

Pleas in law and main arguments:

By the contested decision the Commission decided not to


amended Annex I to Directive 91/414 (2) so as to include
‘Simazine’ among the active substances listed there. Article 4 of Action brought on 17 June 2004 by Jacques Wunenburger
Directive 91/414 states that only plant protection products against the Commission of the European Communities
containing substances listed in Annex I may be authorised by
Member States. By refusing to include Simazine in Annex I the (Case T-246/04)
Commission decided not to allow further use of plant protec-
tion products containing this substance. (2004/C 217/56)

The applicants do not challenge this aspect of the decision but (Language of the case: French)
rather certain transitional provisions which allow until 30 June
2007 and subject to conditions aimed at minimising risk
certain limited uses of products containing Simazine. In the An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
preamble to its decision the Commission justified these transi- nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
tional measures through the current absence of efficient alter- European Communities on 17 June 2004 by Jacques Wunen-
natives and the need to allow time for their development. burger, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by E. Boigelot,
lawyer.
In support of their application the applicants invoke the pleas
and arguments invoked by the same applicants in case T-236/ The applicant claims that the Court should:
04.
— annul the decision adopted by Mr David O'Sullivan, Secre-
tary General, on 11 September 2003 in his capacity as
(1) OJ L 78 16.3.2004 p. 50. appeal assessor and adversely affecting the applicant in that
(2) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the it confirms and definitively approves the applicant's Career
placing of plant protection products on the market, Official Journal Development Report for the period 1 July 2001 to 21
L 230 , 19.8.1991, p. 1-32. December 2002;
— annul that report;
— annul the decision expressly the applicant's complaint,
lodged in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regula-
tions on 9 December 2003 and registered as No R/711/03
and seeking annulment of the contested decision;
Action brought on 17 June 2004 by Elisabeth Saskia Smit — award the applicant damages for non-material harm and for
against Europol adversely affecting his career, owing to the substantial irre-
gularities and also to the significant delay in drawing up
(Case T-244/04) that report, damages assessed on an equitable basis at
EUR 4 000, subject to such amount being increased or
reduced in the course of the proceedings;
(2004/C 217/55)
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
(Language of the case: Dutch)
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his action, the applicant claims that there has
An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
been a breach of the second paragraph of Article 25 and of
First Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 2004
Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations and also of the
by Elisabeth Saskia Smit, residing in Scheveningen (Nether-
general implementing provisions relating to the latter article
lands), represented by P. de Casparis and M.F. Baltussen.
adopted by the Commission on 26 April 2002. He also claims
that there has been a breach of the rights of defence, of the
The applicant claims that the Court should: principle of sound administration, of the duty to have regard
for his welfare and of the principle of equal treatment, and also
— annul Europol's decision of 19 May 2003 together with the a manifest error of assessment.
decision of 19 March 2004 on her complaint;

— order Europol to pay the costs.