Case T-190/03: Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Sanni Olesen against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-08-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, Greece, action for annulment (EU), allowances and expenses, redemption, regulations for civil servants

2.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/47

— The contested decision does not take account of the fact
that, in the years concerned, in the public utilities sector
there were a number of de jure and de facto monopolies
such as to exclude a market open to competition. The
Commission merely assumed, without putting forward
the presence of an open competitive
any evidence,
market.
In that regard, the Court should find that the
Commission has failed to provide adequate reasons inas-
much as it has found competition to have been infringed
on a single ground: the alleged damage suffered by those
undertakings which are not beneficiaries of the measures
provided for by the legislation in question in the event
that they should compete with the beneficiary undertak-
ings for the same contracts.

— Since the inquiry was opened only in so far as concerned
exclusively the local public utilities market where it was
assumed that there was open competition, the final deci-
sion could not assess the impact of
the measures on
other markets which were not concerned by the decision
to initiate the procedure. Finally, the measures in question
cannot be deemed incompatible with the common market
in theory, have
in so far as those undertakings could,
operated in a market other
local public
utilities, which is the only one under formal investigation.

than that of

— The provision which limits the ‘tax moratorium’ to only
three years does not introduce any new State aid, rather it
merely amends a tax regime which has been applicable to
a defined category of taxpayer since 1925.

— Should the Court find that this is a case of State aid, it
should, pursuant
the Treaty, be
to Article 87(3)(c) of
declared compatible with the common market inasmuch
as the measures are inherent in the nature and/or general
structure of the system in question. Indeed, a change in
the general system of local public utilities could not have
been successfully carried out if
the undertakings which
had to become companies with a majority public share-
holding had not been afforded the chance to become
gradually acquainted with the mechanisms which govern
private law.

In its application, the applicant also alleges infringement of
Article 86(2) of the Treaty inasmuch as it was held in the
decision that that provision did not apply to the measures in
question.

(1) Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid
granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans
to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003
L 77, p. 21).

Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Sanni Olesen against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-190/03)

(2003/C 184/102)

(Language of the Case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 May 2003 by Sanni Olesen,
resident in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission's decision of 19 April 2002 not to
grant her an expatriation allowance from her entry into
service on 3 March 2002;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant
in this case, a Grade A official with the
Commission, opposes the Commission's decision not to grant
her an expatriation allowance because she worked in Belgium
from 15 June 1995. Since that date she has lived in Belgium
and has had her main occupation there, as a freelance lecturer
for Education and
for the Commission's Directorate-General
Culture and as representative in Brussels of
the town of
Odense (ODENSE KOMMUNE — Denmark).

In support of her claims,
Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII
submits in this connection that:

the applicant pleads breach of
to the Staff Regulations. She

— the status of freelance lecturer, characterised by a direct
legal link between her and the institution, corresponds to
a situation arising from work done for an international
organisation;

— under

their charters of autonomy, Danish towns may
open representations abroad and consequently the appli-
cant's occupation as representative of the town of Odense
‘work done for another State’,
must be regarded as
namely the Kingdom of Denmark.