Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1998:172
Date: 1998-07-16
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC;Privileges and immunities
Concepts: General;Tax on salaries
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

GEBHARD v PARLIAMENT 
JUDGMENT O F THE COURT O F FIRST INSTANCE 
(Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 
16 July 1998* 
In Case T-109/96, 
Gilberte Gebhard, conference interpreter, residing in Heidelberg (Germany), rep­
resented by Thierry Schmitt and Pierre Soler-Couteaux, of the Strasbourg Bar, 
applicant, 
v 
European Parliament, represented by Manfred Peter, Head of Division, Didier 
Petersheim and João Sant'Anna, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an 
address for service at the General Secretariat of the European Parliament, Kirch-
berg, 
defendant, 
APPLICATION for reimbursement of Community tax levied on two payments of 
remuneration to the applicant, 
* Language of the case: French. 
II - 2787 
JUDGMENT OF 16. 7. 1998 — CASE T-109/96 
THE COURT O F FIRST INSTANCE O F THE EUROPEAN 
COMMUNITIES (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), 
composed of: V. Tiili, President, C. P. Briet, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki and 
J. D. Cooke, Judges, 
Registrar: A. Mair, Administrator, 
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 5 May 1998, 
gives the following 
Judgment 
Legislative background 
1 Under the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) of the Treaty of 8 April 1965 
establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Commu­
nities (hereinafter 'the Merger Treaty'), the Council, acting by a qualified majority 
on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the other institutions 
concerned, is to lay down the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Com­
munities and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European 
Communities (hereinafter 'the Conditions of Employment'). 
II - 2788 
GEBHARD v PARLIAMENT 
2 Under Article 13 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the Euro­
pean Communities of 8 April 1965 (hereinafter 'the Protocol'): 
`Officials and other servants of the Communities shall be Hable to a tax for the 
benefit of the Communities on salaries, wages and emoluments paid to them by 
the Communities, in accordance with the conditions and procedure laid down by 
the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission. 
They shall be exempt from national taxes on salaries, wages and emoluments paid 
by the Communities.' 
3 Under the first paragraph of Article 1 of the Conditions of Employment, which 
came into force on 5 March 1968, as laid down by Article 3 of Council Regulation 
(EEC, Euratom, ECSC) N o 259/68 of 29 February 1968 (OJ English Special Edi­
tion 1968 (I), p. 30), these Conditions are to apply to servants engaged under con­
tract by the Communities. Under Article 3, 'auxiliary staff' means staff engaged, 
within the limits set in Article 52, for the performance of full-time or part-time 
duties in an institution. 
4 Article 52(b), contained in Title III of the Conditions of Employment, concerning 
auxiliary staff, limits the actual period of employment of auxiliary staff, including 
any period under renewal, to one year. 
5 Finally, Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment provides: 
'By way of derogation from the provisions of this Title, auxiliary staff engaged by 
the European Parliament for the duration of the work of its sessions shall be sub­
ject to the conditions of recruitment and remuneration laid down in the agreement 
between the Parliament, the Council of Europe and the Assembly of [the] Western 
European Union in respect of engagement of such staff. 
II - 2789 
JUDGMENT OF 16. 7. 1998 — CASE T-109/96 
The provisions of that agreement and any subsequent amendment thereto shall be 
notified to the competent budgetary authorities one month before their entry into 
force.' 
6 Auxiliary staff are liable to Community tax under the first indent of Article 2 of 
Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) N o 260/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 
laying down the conditions and procedure for applying the tax for the benefit of 
the European Communities (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 37), as sub­
sequently amended (hereinafter 'Regulation N o 260/68'). 
7 By decision of 16 February 1983, the Bureau of the Parliament adopted, pursuant 
to Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment, a set of internal rules relating to 
freelance conference interpreters (hereinafter 'the internal rules'), which entered 
into force on 1 March 1983. 
8 In 1984 the Parliament became a party to the five-year framework agreements con­
cluded since 1970 by the Commission with the International Association of Con­
ference Interpreters (hereinafter 'IACI') for the purpose of laying down the work­
ing conditions and rules on remuneration for freelance conference interpreters 
engaged by the Commission on behalf of the Community institutions. 
9 The framework agreements, under the first paragraph of Article 1 thereof, are to 
apply to freelance conference interpreters engaged by the Commission under the 
conditions laid down in the provisions concerning conference interpreters which 
may be applied by the institution where they work. In practice, such interpreters 
are engaged at short notice, by telephone or fax, usually for a period of a few days 
only. The contract is subsequently formalised by written confirmation. 
II - 2790 
GEBHARD v PARLIAMENT 
10 That confirmation includes a statement that the engagement is governed by the 
rules applicable in the institution for which the person concerned provides his ser­
vices and that interpreters engaged for work at the Parliament are entitled to the 
legal remedies provided for by Title VII of the Staff Regulations in the event of 
any dispute relating to their engagement. 
1 1 Article 33 provides that every institution is to adapt its rules concerning freelance 
conference interpreters, in accordance with the framework agreement in force. 
12 The internal rules of the Parliament were therefore adapted to the five-year frame­
work agreement concluded on 15 September 1994, for the period from 1 January 
1994 to 31 December 1998. With a view to securing the agreement required by 
Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment, the Secretary-General of the Euro­
pean Parliament sent a draft of the internal rules to the Council of Europe and the 
Assembly of the Western European Union (hereinafter 'the WEU'), by letters of 
31 March 1995, pointing out that the new provisions would enter into force on 17 
April 1995 in the absence of any objections from the two recipients. The document 
containing the new internal rules, entitled 'Rules applicable to auxiliary session 
interpreters', was signed by the Secretary-General of the Parliament on 17 April 
1995. 
13 Those rules, under Article 1 thereof, apply pursuant to Article 78 of the Condi­
tions of Employment, for the duration of his engagement, to any interpreter 
engaged to provide his services to the European Parliament on a part-time basis 
during its plenary sessions, committee meetings or meetings of other parliamentary 
bodies. 
1 4 Article 2 provides that such auxiliary session interpreters are to be engaged by the 
European Parliament, pursuant to Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment, 
and by the Commission, acting on behalf of the European Communities, under the 
terms of Article 1 of the framework agreement in force. 
II - 2791 
JUDGMENT OF 16. 7. 1998 — CASE T-109/96 
15 Article 3 provides inter alia that, subject to the provisions laid down by the ensu­
ing articles, auxiliary session interpreters are to enjoy the grading, remuneration, 
flat-rate travel allowance and index links laid down by the framework agreement. 
16 Article 4.1 provides that, pursuant to Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment, 
the remuneration and flat-rate travel allowance provided for in Articles 5 and 7 of 
the framework agreement are subject, in the case of staff covered by the internal 
rules, to the Community tax introduced by Council Regulation N o 260/68 under 
Article 13 of the Protocol. 
17 Finally, Article 8 refers to the Conditions of Employment and other rules appli­
cable to all staff for resolving any question not covered by the internal rules or the 
framework agreement. 
Background to the dispute 
18 Since 1976, Mrs Gebha rd has been employed b y the Par l iament as a conference 
interpreter on the basis of a succession of short-term contracts. 
19 Two such periods of employment, from 6 to 9 November 1995, and from 11 to 14 
December 1995, were confirmed by letters from the Parliament, dated 10 Novem­
ber and 8 December 1995 respectively. 
20 By letter of 29 February 1996 to the Parliament, Mrs Gebhard contested the levy­
ing of Community tax, amounting to ECU 477.61, on her remuneration in respect 
of those two periods, arguing that, under Article 2 of Regulation N o 260/68, 
freelance interpreters are not liable to the tax. 
II - 2792 
GEBHARD v PARLIAMENT 
21 The Parliament replied to Mrs Gebhard by letter of 10 June 1996, pointing out that 
Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment enabled it to recruit staff for short 
periods in order to meet specific requirements for additional staff arising from par­
liamentary activity. As Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment falls within 
Title III, which deals with auxiliary staff, any staff recruited under that provision 
are liable to Community tax on the same basis as other auxiliary staff, by virtue of 
Article 2 of Regulation N o 260/68. 
Procedure 
22 By application lodged on 17 July 1996, Mrs Gebhard brought this action against 
the refusal to repay Community tax. 
23 The case, which was originally assigned to the Third Chamber, was referred to the 
Third Chamber in its extended composition by decision of the Court of First 
Instance of 4 February 1998, adopted pursuant to Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules 
of Procedure. 
24 Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur, the Court of First Instance 
(Third Chamber, Extended Composition) decided to open the oral procedure. As a 
measure of organisation of procedure, it asked the Parliament to provide certain 
information. 
25 The parties presented oral argument and replied to oral questions from the Court 
at the hearing on 5 May 1998. 
II - 2793 
JUDGMENT OF 16. 7. 1998 — CASE T-109/96 
Forms of order sought 
26 The applicant claims that the Court should: 
— declare the application admissible; 
— annul the decision rejecting the complaint; 
— order the abatement of Community tax and its reimbursement to the applicant, 
together with interest at the statutory rate; 
— order the Parliament to pay the costs. 
27 The Parliament contends that the Court should: 
— declare the application inadmissible; 
— declare that Community tax was properly levied on the applicant's remunera­
tion; 
— make an order as to costs in accordance with its Rules of Procedure. 
II - 2794 
GEBHARD v PARLIAMENT 
Admissibility 
28 The Parliament disputes, first, Mrs Gebhard's interest in bringing an action, in that 
she confines herself to referring to a conflict of jurisdiction in tax matters between 
the German administration and the Parliament without establishing that national 
tax was also levied on her remuneration. 
29 The applicant counters that the reason behind her action is the uncertain nature of 
her tax status, given that the authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany, her 
country of residence, have long disputed that interpreters engaged by the Parlia­
ment are Hable to Community tax. 
30 It is sufficient for the Court to point out that, as the subject-matter of the applica­
tion is the reimbursement of Community tax levied, the applicant clearly has an 
interest in bringing an action. 
31 Second, the Parliament refers to the applicant's delay in bringing proceedings in 
that she did not contest the levying of tax at the outset in respect of previous peri­
ods of employment and, third, it points out that she can hardly dispute her status 
as a member of the auxiliary staff while relying on the legal remedies available 
under Title III of the Conditions of Employment. 
32 It is appropriate to consider the substance of the application before a ruling can be 
given on those two objections of inadmissibility, since the assessment of their mer­
its depends on the answer to the initial substantive question whether Mrs Gebhard 
was legally engaged as a member of the auxiliary staff within the meaning of Title 
III of the Conditions of Employment. 
II - 2795 
JUDGMENT OF 16. 7. 1998 — CASE T-109/% 
Substance 
33 By her three pleas seeking annulment, Mrs Gebhard disputes the legality of the 
Parliament's internal rules, on the basis of which the Parliament levied the Com-
munity tax in issue. 
The first plea, alleging breach of Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment and 
Article 2 of Regulation No 260/68 
Arguments of the parties 
34 Mrs Gebhard claims that legally she could not be liable to Community tax as she 
is not covered either by the Conditions of Employment or, because of her specific 
employment situation, by the special provisions derived from the application of 
Article 78 of those Conditions. 
35 Although all the periods for which she was engaged were of short duration, they 
had recurred frequently year after year since 1976, whereas the actual duration of 
the employment of a member of the auxiliary staff may not exceed one year in any 
circumstances. 
36 The general provisions of the Conditions of Employment, set out in Articles 1 to 
7, the purpose of which is to define the scope ratione personae of those Condi­
tions, do not contain any exceptions to the definition of auxiliary staff which are 
specific to Article 78 and involve derogating from Article 52. In authorising a 
derogation from Title III of the Conditions of Employment only on the basis of 
conditions, laid down by the agreement referred to therein, regarding the recruit­
ment and remuneration of auxiliary staff engaged by the Parliament during part-
sessions, Article 78 only makes it possible to derogate from Chapter 3, 'Conditions 
II - 2796 
GEBHARD v PARLIAMENT 
of Engagement', and Chapter 5, 'Remuneration and Expenses', of Title III of the 
Conditions of Employment. 
37 The Parliament counters that, because of the derogation provided for by Article 78 
of the Conditions of Employment, Article 52 of those Conditions is not applicable 
to auxiliary session staff either. The time-limit laid down by that article is immate­
rial because its application to auxiliary session staff would amount to abolishing 
the derogation referred to in Article 78, which is precisely what provides the Par­
liament with the legal and practical means to arrange for the additional staff neces­
sary for its parliamentary activities. 
Findings of the Court 
38 As the facts of the case show, Mrs Gebhard was engaged as a conference inter­
preter for successive periods of employment, each limited to a few days, following 
informal contact and subsequent written confirmation. 
39 Although the Court has held that additional interpreters engaged by the Commis­
sion on the basis of short-term contracts which are frequently renewed from year 
to year, as in the applicant's case, are not entitled to the status of Community ser­
vant within the meaning of the Conditions of Employment, it expressly reserved 
judgment on the question of the application of the internal rules adopted by the 
Parliament under Article 78 of those Conditions (Case 43/84 Maag v Commission 
[1985] ECR 2581, paragraphs 22 and 23). 
40 That article effectively allows the Parliament, by way of derogation from Title III 
of the Conditions of Employment, to limit to the duration of the work of its ses­
sions the period for which the auxiliary staff required for their organisation are 
II - 2797 
JUDGMENT OF 16. 7. 1998 — CASE T-109/96 
engaged. To that end, the provision in question refers to the conditions of recruit­
ment of the additional staff necessary for parliamentary activities, agreed on previ­
ously between three European institutions or organisations with a specific interest 
in that respect. 
41 Thus, the purpose of Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment is to enable the 
parliamentary institution of the European Communities to meet its specific needs 
for large numbers of additional staff to ensure that the meetings of its various 
decision-making bodies are conducted properly. 
42 Accordingly, the time-limit on the length of employment of auxiliary staff set by 
Article 52(b) of the Conditions of Employment has, by definition, no relevance to 
such additional staff because the repetitive nature and limited duration of their suc­
cessive contracts are in fact features of the concept of engagement within the 
meaning of Article 78 of those Conditions. 
43 The Parliament does not, therefore, appear to have exceeded the limits of the dero­
gation granted to it by the Council in Article 78 of the Conditions of Employ­
ment, in adopting, pursuant to that provision, the internal rules applicable to ses­
sion interpreters, since, under Article 1 of those rules, the only staff who come 
under them are freelance interpreters engaged to provide their services to the Par­
liament on a part-time basis during its plenary sessions, committee meetings and 
meetings of other parliamentary bodies. 
44 Accordingly, the engagement of the applicant as a member of staff within the 
meaning of Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment necessarily gave her the 
status of a member of the auxiliary staff within the meaning of Title III of those 
Conditions. 
II - 2798 
GEBHARD v PARLIAMENT 
45 Since, under Article 2 of Regulation N o 260/68, auxiliary staff are liable to Com­
munity tax, the Parliament was not contravening that provision in withholding the 
Community tax in issue in accordance with its internal rules. 
46 The applicant's first plea must therefore be rejected as unfounded. 
The second plea, alleging breach of the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) of the 
Merger Treaty 
Arguments of the parties 
47 The applicant considers that, as Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment refers 
to the agreement reached between the Parliament, the Council of Europe and the 
Assembly of the WEU before the publication of the Conditions of Employment, 
the specific conditions laid down by that agreement on recruitment and remunera­
tion of auxiliary session staff, to the exclusion of all other matters, are incorporated 
in Title III of the Conditions of Employment. 
48 Any amendment to those specific conditions, therefore, automatically entails a 
change to Title III of the Conditions of Employment. In drawing up on the basis 
of Article 78 of those Conditions an independent set of internal rules for auxiliary 
session interpreters, the Parliament has, she alleges, inevitably encroached upon the 
exclusive authority which the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) of the Merger 
Treaty confers on the Council to determine the Conditions of Employment. 
II - 2799 
JUDGMENT OF 16. 7. 1998 — CASE T-109/96 
49 Moreover, she maintains, the Parliament has not established that it submitted its 
internal rules to the other two parties concerned for approval before implementa­
tion. 
50 In any event, the internal rules cannot be regarded as an agreement within the 
meaning of Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment since Article 3.1 of those 
rules, concerning the remuneration of auxiliary session interpreters, refers to a 
framework agreement which does not apply to the Council of Europe or the 
Assembly of the WEU. 
51 Finally, since neither of the latter two parties to the agreement referred to in 
Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment makes its interpreters liable to 
income tax deducted at source, the liability to Community tax provided for by the 
internal rules does not fall within the scope of that agreement. 
52 The Parliament counters that it confined itself to adopting, in accordance with 
Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment, a set of internal rules applicable to 
interpreters engaged as auxiliary session staff, which were submitted, before their 
implementation, to the two other parties concerned for approval. 
Findings of the Court 
53 It is apparent from the examination of the first plea that the applicant has no 
grounds for maintaining that any change in the specific conditions applicable to 
auxiliary session staff automatically entails an amendment to Title III of the Con­
ditions of Employment. In fact, the second paragraph of Article 78 of those Con­
ditions expressly authorises the parties to the agreement in question to amend its 
provisions. 
II - 2800 
GEBHARD v PARLIAMENT 
54 On the question of the arrangements for the adoption of the internal rules in force, 
the file before the Court contains no evidence that the Council of Europe or the 
Assembly of the WEU raised any objections to the draft internal rules which the 
Secretary-General of the Parliament sent to them by letters of 31 March 1995 in 
order to obtain their approval pursuant to Article 78 of the Conditions of 
Employment. 
55 As regards the internal rules of a substantive nature which thus entered into force, 
they have not been shown to exceed the limits set to the conditions of recruitment 
and remuneration outlined by the agreement under Article 78 of the Conditions of 
Employment. 
56 In particular, as the Parliament has argued, the purpose of that agreement may 
have been not so much to achieve exact equivalence in the remuneration paid by 
the three parties thereto, as merely to agree on scales of remuneration in accord­
ance with the particular requirements of each party. 
57 Finally, in providing that the remuneration of auxiliary session interpreters is sub­
ject to Community tax, pursuant to Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment, 
Article 4.1 of the internal rules merely implements, in relation to those concerned, 
the first indent of Article 2 of Regulation N o 260/68. 
58 Accordingly, the applicant's argument that the liability to Community tax pro­
vided for by the internal rules does not fall within the scope of the agreement 
under Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment is of no relevance. 
59 It follows that the second plea must be rejected. 
II - 2801 
JUDGMENT OF 16. 7. 1998 — CASE T-109/96 
Breach of Article 13 of the Protocol 
60 The applicant argues that, as freelance conference interpreters are not covered by 
the Conditions of Employment, the Parliament may not make them liable to 
Community tax without encroaching upon the authority conferred on the Council 
by Article 13 of the Protocol. 
61 The Court considers that, since the conference interpreters recruited by the Parlia­
ment as auxiliary session interpreters are to be regarded as auxiliary staff within the 
meaning of Title III of the Conditions of Employment, the plea must be rejected 
since it is based on a false premiss. 
62 It follows from the foregoing that the application must be dismissed as unfounded, 
without there being any need to consider the second and third objections of inad­
missibility raised by the Parliament. 
Costs 
63 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be 
ordered to pay the costs, if they have been applied for in the successful party's 
pleadings. However, Article 88 of those Rules provides that in proceedings 
between the Communities and their servants the institutions are to bear their own 
costs. 
64 In view of the complexity of the legal background to these proceedings, the appli­
cation made by the Parliament under the second subparagraph of Article 87(3) of 
the Rules of Procedure for an order requiring the applicant to pay the costs which 
she has vexatiously caused it to incur must be dismissed. The parties must there­
fore be ordered, pursuant to Article 88 of the Rules of Procedure, to bear their 
own costs. 
II - 2802 
GEBHARD v PARLIAMENT 
On those grounds, 
THE COURT O F FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), 
hereby: 
1) Dismisses the application. 
2) Orders the parties to bear their own costs. 
Tiili Briët Lenaerts 
Potocki Cooke 
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 16 July 1998. 
H. Jung 
Registrar 
V. Tiili 
President 
II - 2803