C 335/48 EN 25.11.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
By the contested decision that application was rejected on the Pleas in law and main arguments
ground that the fourth paragraph of Article 80 of the Staff
Regulations was not applicable, since it refers solely to theIn Article 1 of the contested decision the Commission findsdeath of the official’s spouse and the pension scheme ofthat the application of certain tax provisions in the formerofficials does not provide for an orphan’s pension in the caseGerman Zonenrandförderungsgesetz (Law on the Promotionof the death of a cohabitee.of Zone Boundary Areas, ZRFG), namely special write-offs and
tax-free reserves, taken advantage of in the past by the
applicant, is incompatible with the common market. By the present action, the applicant claims that her daughter’s
status as an acknowledged child and an orphan must meanthat she is entitled to the orphan’s pension on the sameIn its application, the applicant complains that:conditions as when that pension is awarded to the orphaned
children of married parents.— the Commission did not classify the tax measures taken
advantage of by the applicant as general provisions of tax
law (to be dealt with under Article 67 CS, if at all) but as She observes that it follows from Article 8 of the European
aid within the meaning of Article 4(c) CS; Convention on Human Rights and from the principle of the
unicity of the civil status of persons that the Commission is
— the Commission failed to apply Article 95 CS to the tax bound to have regard to all aspects of the child’s personal
measures at issue — if they were aid — by granting status, and in particular to recognise the legal effects attaching
retrospective approval; thereto.
— the Commission assessed the making of special write-offsFurthermore, the Commission has acted in breach of theon the acquisition of investment assets for the sectors ofprinciple of equal treatment and non-discrimination.the applicant’s business which do not serve the pro-
duction of ECSC products under Article 4(c) CS and notunder the EC Treaty;
— the Commission did not recognise that the making of
special write-offs on environment protection investmentsunder Paragraph 3 of the ZRFG up to 31 December 1990
had the same conditions and financial consequences as
the making of special write-offs on environment protec-Action brought on 21 September 2000 by Salzgitter AGtion investments under Paragraph 7d of the Einkommen-against the Commission of the European Communitiessteuergesetz (Law on Income Tax), which is a general
provision of tax law applicable in the entire territory of
Germany; (Case T-308/00)
— the Commission failed to state, in a form in compliance(2000/C 335/92)with the requirements of the Treaty, the reasons for
which it does not regard the making of special write-offs
on environment protection investments in the periodafter 1 January 1991 as capable of approval; (Language of the case: German)
— the Commission used as a basis for ascertaining theAn action against the Commission of the European Communi-amount of aid objected to, with respect to interest,ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of thenot the actual liquidity and interest situation of theEuropean Communities on 21 September 2000 by Salzgitterundertaking but a rate of interest determined by it inAG, of Salzgitter, Germany, represented by Jochim Sedemund,the abstract without taking account of the individualRechtsanwalt, of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Berlin.circumstances of the undertaking;
— the Commission, in breach of the general legal principle The applicant claims that the Court should:
of legal certainty, also included in the scope of its decision
the making of special write-offs which occurred in a— annul Commission Decision C(2000) 1963 fin. of 28 Juneperiod which, applying Article 15 of Council Regulation2000 on State aid from Germany in favour of Salzgitter(EC) No 659/1999 (
1) (ten-year period) by analogy, is noAG, Preussag Stahl AG and the subsidiaries of the grouplonger subject to recovery.in the iron and steel industry, now Salzgitter AG — Stahl
und Technologie (SAG);
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying— order the Commission to pay the costs; down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
Treaty (OJ L 83 of 27.3.1999, p. 1).
— order the Commission to give the applicant access to all
procedural documents under Article 23 of the ECSC
Statute of the Court of Justice.