Case T-275/01: Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez Moreno against European Parliament
Date: 2002-01-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), age discrimination, information profession, older worker, servant (EU)

C 3/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.1.2002

Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Valmont Neder-
land B.V. against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-274/01)

(2002/C 3/79)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Lastly, the applicant asserts that the Commission misused its
powers when assessing the value of the land at the time of the
purchase and when assessing the element of State aid relating
to what the applicant maintains is a car park used by the
public, and concerning the sums charged by way of interest
on the alleged State aid.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 October 2001 by Valmont
Nederland B.V., established at Maarheeze (Netherlands), rep-
resented by André Van Landuyt, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez
Moreno against European Parliament

(Case T-275/01)

(2002/C 3/80)

(1)

annul Decision No C 2001 2231 of the Commission of
18 July 2001;

(Language of the case: French)

(2) order the Commission, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules
of Procedure, to pay all the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the contested decision of the Commission, the
applicant has received State aid in the form of a reduced
purchase price for the building land on which the applicant
now maintains its establishment in the Netherlands and a
subsidy for the installation of a car park on it. The Commission
is demanding that the aid received be repaid.

The applicant maintains that, in adopting its decision, the
Commission has infringed Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
According to the applicant, the Commission has not shown
that the applicant benefited from an aid measure in the
purchase of the building land. It claims that that purchase took
place on market terms and conditions. Moreover, any aid
which may have been received had no effect on competition
within the common market or on trade between Member
States.

The applicant also pleads infringement of essential procedural
requirements, more specifically of the right to a fair hearing.
According to the applicant, the Commission relies on a report
on the value of the land which was drawn up previously
without any involvedment on the part of the applicant.
to
Likewise, after
Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, its observations were not taken
into account.

the procedure was opened pursuant

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
26 October 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez Moreno, residing in
Berlin, represented by Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the President of the European
Parliament, contained in a letter of 19 July 2001, rejecting
the applicant’s request and thus confirming the decision
of the European Parliament no longer to call upon the
services of freelance interpreters who have reached the
age of 65 years, as in the case of the applicant;

— annul the inter-institutional decision referred to by the
Secretary General of the European Parliament in the letter
of 5 March 2001;

— consequently, acknowledge the applicant’s right to con-
tinue to provide her services as a freelance interpreter,
either in the service of the European Parliament or any
other Community institution, beyond the age of 65;

— order compensation for the material and non-material
damage suffered by the applicant, provisionally assessed
at one euro;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

5.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 3/47

Pleas in law and main arguments

on 26 October 2001 by Mély Garroni, residing in Rome,
represented by Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.

The applicant is a freelance interpreter who has worked
regularly for the European Parliament since 1986. She has also
worked regularly in the same capacity for the Commission. In
the course of the month in which she reached the age of 65,
the applicant was informed orally that the Commission had
purportedly adopted a decision providing that, under a full
application of Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment of
Other Servants of the European Communities (CEOS), free-
lance interpreters could no longer be engaged beyond the age
of 65. In December 2000 the applicant learned informally that
the European Parliament was obliged to apply that decision
with effect from 1 April 2001.

The applicant, among others, lodged a complaint against the
memorandum informing her of the inter-institutional decision
no longer to recruit freelance interpreters over the age of 65
years. The President of the European Parliament rejected that
complaint.

In support of her application,
the applicant claims that
Article 78 CEOS cannot be relied upon as a basis for a rule
setting the age of 65 years as a limit for freelance interpreters.
That provision is a derogation from the Staff Regulations and
refers to an agreement between the European Parliament, the
Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western European
Union. Article 78 makes no mention, either express or implied,
of Article 74 CEOS which provides for the termination of
auxiliary staff contracts; moreover, freelance interpreters do
not have a contract within the meaning of Article 74 CEOS.

The applicant pleads, furthermore, breach of the principle of
non-retroactivity and of the principle of non-discrimination
and of acquired rights, legitimate expectations, sound adminis-
In addition to her claims for
tration and legal certainty.
annulment, the applicant also seeks compensation for the
material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Mély Garroni
against European Parliament

(Case T-276/01)

(2002/C 3/81)

(Language of the case: French)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the inter-institutional decision of the European
Union, as referred to in the letter from G. Macario of
24 January 2001, rendering henceforth impossible for
the European Parliament, as a result of the application of
Article 78 CEOS, as amended, to retain or recruit freelance
interpreters — such as the applicant — beyond the age
of 65 years;

— in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the President
of the European Parliament, contained in a letter of
20 July 2001, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

— consequently uphold the applicant’s right to continue to
provide services to the European Parliament — or any
other institution — beyond the age-limit of 65 years;

— order provisional payment of one euro to the applicant
by way of compensation for the material and non-
material damage suffered;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied upon in Case T-275/01 Alvarez Moreno v Parliament.

Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Romuald Stevens
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-277/01)

(2002/C 3/82)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 October 2001 by Romuald
Stevens, residing in Bertem (Belgium), represented by Jean-
Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, lawyers.