Case T-155/01: Action brought on 10 July 2001 by Robert Walton against the Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2001-09-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), engineer, servant (EU), termination of a contract, work contract

C 275/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.9.2001

— make good the damage caused to the applicant provision-

ally assessed at 1 euro;

Action brought on 10 July 2001 by Robert Walton against
the Commission of the European Communities.

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a freelance interpreter who has worked
regularly for the Commission since 1986. After her 65th birth-
day, the applicant noticed that the Commission no longer
contacted her with new offers of work. Later, the Commission
informed the applicant of its decision no longer to engage
conference interpreters over the age of 65 and thus no longer
to call on her services on that ground. According to the
Commission, that decision was taken after the Council adopted
Regulation No 628/2000 (1) amending Article 78 of
the
Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the Communi-
ties (CES).

subject

the employment of

freelance interpreters

According to the applicant, the Commission gives Article 78
of the CES as the reason for its decision to make termination
of
to
Article 74 of the CES, and thus subject also to the age limit of
65 years. However, the applicant claims that Article 74 is
clearly not intended to govern the situation of
freelance
interpreters. It is not feasible to consider that the engagement
of an interpreter ceases as provided for by Article 74 ‘at the
end of the month in which the agent reaches the age of
65 years’, since such engagement could be reduced to a matter
of days. Any age limit in respect of the provision of services
by freelance interpreters can therefore be considered to be a
condition which applies only in the event of recruitment of a
freelance interpreter. However, there is no statutory provision
regarding any age limit with regard to pursuit of their activities.

The applicant claims that to subject freelance interpreters who
provide their services to the Community institutions to an
age limit constitutes discrimination between those freelance
interpreters who provide their services to the Community
institutions and those who do not.

In support of her claims, the applicant pleads, moreover,
breach of the principle of non-retroactivity, acquired rights,
legitimate expectations, sound administration and legal cer-
tainty. In addition to her claims for annulment, the applicant
also seeks compensation for material and non-material damage
allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission’s decision.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 628/2000 of
20 March 2000 amending Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC)
No 259/68 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of
Other Servants of the Communities (OJ L 76 of 25.3.2000, p. 1).

(Case T-155/01)

(2001/C 275/26)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 July 2001 by Robert Walton,
residing in Oxford (UK), represented by Paul Harris of Monck-
ton Chambers, London (UK).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Annul the Commission decision of 3 October 2000;

2. Declare that that decision and/or the Commission’s letter
of termination was unlawful and/or in breach of the
notice of termination provisions in Article 5 of the
contract and/or Article 47 of the Conditions of Employ-
ment of Other Servants of the European Communities;

3. Order the Commission to pay the applicant compen-
sation for breach of contract, and/or for breach of
in the
Article 47 of the Conditions of Employment,
amounts referred to in the compensation section of this
application;

4. Order the Commission to pay to the applicant his costs;

and

5.

Take such further measures and grant such further relief,
under the Statute of the Court of Justice and/or Rules of
Procedure of the Court of First Instance, as may be
necessary, just or equitable.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case is a Chartered Engineer,
specialising in power and nuclear projects, who in October
1999 was recruited by the Commission to set up in Research
Directorate-General XII a help desk for small and medium-
sized enterprises involved with innovation and research.

The application seeks the annulment of the decision contained
in a letter of termination, of 3 October 2000, which purported
to ‘terminate [the applicant’s] employment’, ‘with effect from
16.10.2000’.

The applicant claims wrongful dismissal and states to that end
that:

— The commencement date of the contract was 1 November

1999.

29.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 275/13

— Article 34 of the Staff Regulations is not applicable to his
employment. His probationary period was governed by
Article 14 of the Conditions of Employment of Other
Servants of
the European Communities and by the
contract.

— Under Article 5(a) of the contract and Article 14 of the
Conditions of Employment, his probationary period was
six months, coming to an end on 30 April 2000.

— He was not dismissed during that six-month probationary

period.

— The termination decision did not provide him with the
requisite three- months’ notice and was thus made in
breach of Article 5(b) of the contract and Article 47 of
the Conditions of Employment. In addition, no or no
full compensation has been paid, in further breach of
Article 47.

— In any event the applicant never accepted the proposed,
or any, extension of his probationary period. On the
contrary, he expressly and repeatedly rejected any exten-
sion whatsoever.

Action brought on 11 July 2001 by Danske Busvognmænd
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-157/01)

(2001/C 275/27)

(Language of the Case: Danish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 July 2001 by Danske Bus-
vognmænd, Frederiksberg (Denmark), represented by Per Dal-
skov.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

28 March

— Primarily: annul the European Commission’s decision
aid measure
of
No NN 127/2000 (State aid for Combus A/S) (SG (2001)
D/287297), and rule that the decision is void pursuant to
the first paragraph of Article 231 EC;

concerning

2001

— In the alternative: annul the European Commission’s
approval of the portion of the aid granted to Combus A/S
on 31 May 1999;

— Order the European Commission to pay the costs
involved in bringing the case before the Court of First
Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In 1995 the Danish Minister for Transport established the
company DSB Busser A/S with ownership vested in De Danske
Statsbaner (DSB). The company took over buses and other
assets from DSB and operated a number of regional and local
bus routes in Denmark. The company was subsequently
transferred to the Danish Ministry of Transport and changed
its name to Combus A/S (’Combus’).

In connection with the company’s taking over of the operation
of routes, employees of DSB placed on loan to Combus were
offered compensation for transferring to employment on a
group contract basis, this compensation being paid by DSB. In
1999 the Ministry of Transport granted Combus a secured
loan of DKK 100 million and made a capital injection of DKK
200 million, ostensibly in order to prevent Combus, which
was in serious financial difficulties, from going into liquidation.

The applicant, which is a branch organisation of bus compani-
es, lodged a complaint with the Commission in November
1999 in regard to the above measures.

In November 2000 the Danish State informed the Commission
that it intended to grant State aid to Combus in connection
with the company’s sale to the English-owned company Arriva
Danmark A/S. The aid was estimated at DKK 171.8 million. In
the contested decision the Commission approved the aid in
the respective amounts of DKK 300 million and DKK 171.8
million.

as

the

conditions

aid in so far

The applicant claims that the Commission has approved
unlawful State
in
Article 87(3)(c) EC have not been satisfied. Even though the
Commission can, as a general rule, lawfully apply the frame-
work provisions on State aid to undertakings in crisis, those
framework provisions cannot depart from the provisions of
Article 87 EC. The aid for Combus, it argues, is not in the
Community interest and does not serve those objectives which
may justify approval of aid as restructuring aid. The aid was in
the nature of operating aid or, possibly, rescue aid, but this has
not been mentioned by the Commission as relevant in this
case. Further, the aid had the effect of distorting competition.

The applicant also claims that the Commission has mistakenly
dealt with only two out of three tranches of State aid in that it
failed to address the obligation which DSB undertook to pay
compensation to employees transferring to employment on a
group contract basis. The Commission further erred, it argues,
in treating the State aid as one entire aid measure despite the
fact that three separate and independent State aid measures
were granted. While there was presumably a causal connection
between the two aid amounts of DKK 300 million and DKK
171.8 million, these were separate in time and served different
objectives.