Case T-385/00: Action brought on 27 December 2000 by Jean-Paul Seiller against the European Investment Bank
Date: 2001-02-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Investment Bank, European official, appeal to the Court (EU), termination of a contract, transfer of pension rights, work contract

C 61/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.2.2001

— order that interest at the annual rate of 8 % or any other
appropriate rate to be determined by the Court be paid
on the amount payable as from the date of judgment;

— order the European Community, as represented here
by the Council of the European Union, the European
Parliament and the Commission of the European Com-
munities, to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case is a small well-established
firm in the business of high quality printing on folding carton
packaging for products such as cosmetics and fragances. The
market in question is to a great extent focused on the United
States both in terms of logistics and market share.

The applicant states that, as a result of the retaliatory measures
taken by the United States, and allowed by The Dispute
Settlement Body, because of the adoption by the European
Community of a scheme for importation of bananas that is to
be considered as contrary to the GATT and GATS, the United
States market has been entirely closed off, so that heavy
investments in capital adapted specifically to the needs of this
market have been rendered worthless. As a question of fact,
the sanctions in question have been applied to the applicant’s
products now for over 18 months, taking the form of 100 %
ad valorem duties.

The applicant submits that the Community’s maintenance in
place of an unlawful banana regime has caused it serious
damage which the Community has a duty to make good under
Article 288(2) C. In support of this claim the applicant submits
that the damage being caused to it is the direct result of the
Community’s unlawful failure to comply with its international
obligations.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— rule that the European Investment Bank is required to
reimburse to Mr Seiller the sum of LUF 4 779 652 in
respect of his pension rights;

— rule that that sum is to bear compound interest from
1 May 1993 at the annual rate fixed by the President of
the European Investment Bank;

— order the European Investment Bank to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case, having worked for the EIB,
submitted his resignation in April 1993, requesting that he
should not have to work his notice period. Thereafter, the
defendant and the applicant signed an agreement by which the
EIB was to pay to Mr Seiller a certain sum ‘in full and final
settlement, on a lump-sum basis, of all accounts due and in
satisfaction of all rights and claims, whether contractual or
extra-contractual, which you have or may have against the
Bank or any other Community body as at today’s date’.

The applicant maintains that the consent expressed by him in
that agreement is vitiated by the fact that, at the time when it
was signed, he did not have available to him all the information
necessary in order for him to be fully apprised. Thus, the sum
paid to him did not include the amount corresponding to the
reimbursement of his pension rights.

The applicant therefore seeks to challenge the sum expressed
to be in full and final settlement under the agreement signed
in April 1993.

Action brought on 27 December 2000 by Jean-Paul Seiller
against the European Investment Bank

Action brought on 28 December 2000 by Margarida
Gonçalves against the European Parliament

(Case T-385/00)

(2001/C 61/41)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-386/00)

(2001/C 61/42)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in
on 27 December 2000 by Jean-Paul Seiller, resident
Luxembourg, represented by Dominique Chouanier, of the
Paris Bar, and Lex Thielen, of the Luxembourg Bar.

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
28 December 2000 by Margarida Gonçalves, residing in
Brussels, represented by Louis Tinti, of the Luxembourg Bar.