Case T-357/03: Action brought on 23 October 2003 by Bruno Gollnisch and Others against the European Parliament
Date: 2004-01-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), administrative expenditure (EU), financial regulation, general budget (EU)

10.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/39

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the European Parliament, obtained
a court decision on 6 August 1999 to the effect that her
daughter should reside mainly with her. The applicant and her
husband, also an official, were divorced by decree of 31 Octo-
ber 2001, which became final on 12 January 2002. The
Parliament decided to pay the applicant only half the travel
expenses for her daughter, and to do so as from 2002, the
year in which the divorce took place.

By this application the applicant contests that decision, on the
basis of Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. The
applicant submits that, in view of the decision granting her
primary custody of her daughter, the latter should be regarded
as being her dependent child and therefore that the travel
expenses should be paid to her at the full rate.

Action brought on 23 October 2003 by Bruno Gollnisch
and Others against the European Parliament

(Case T-357/03)

(2004/C 7/72)

(Language of the case: French)

Following the entry into force on 1 January 2001 of the new
financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the
European Communities (1), the Parliament commenced a pro-
cedure for amendment of the rules concerning budgetary
heading 3701, the credits of which are intended to cover
administrative and operational expenses of the political groups
and of the secretariat for non-attached Members. On 2 July
2003 the Bureau of the Parliament decided to adopt the revised
version of the latter rules, subject to amendment of the
Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and other changes which
might prove necessary following further consultations.

In support of their application for annulment of the decision
adopting the new rules, the applicant invoke first the alleged
failure to comply with formal requirements laid down for the
adoption of such rules. They contend that the new rules were
notified to them in the form of a proposal which did not
purport to be the final version of an official document. They
also submit that the contested measure was adopted without
the budgetary control committee, from which an opinion had
been sought, having issued its report and that therefore an
essential procedural requirement had been disregarded.
In
addition to matters of form, the applicants also claim that
the new rules infringe the principle of equal treatment by
prohibiting new categories of expenses or employment of staff
under budgetary heading 3701 only as far as non-attached
Members are concerned.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June
2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget
of the European Communities (OJ L 248 of 16.9.2002, p. 1).

An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 23 October 2003 against the
European Parliament by Bruno Gollnisch, of Limonest (France),
Marie-France Stirbois, of Villeneuve-Loubey (France), Carl
Lang, of Boulogne-Billancourt (France), Jean-Claude Martinez,
of Montpellier (France), Philip Claeys, of Overijse (Belgium)
and Koen Dillon, of Antwerp (Belgium), represented by
Wallerand de Saint Just, lawyer.

Action brought on 17 October 2003 by Siegfried Krahl
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-358/03)

(2004/C 7/73)

The applicants claim that Court of First Instance should:

(Language of the case: French)

— annul

the Bureau of

the decision of

the European
Parliament of 2 July 2003 and more particularly the
provisions thereof adopting a proposal by Mr Poettering
concerning the report of Mr Van Hulten, which amends
the rules on the use of budgetary heading 3701;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs and

lawyer’s fees amounting to EUR 10 000.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 October 2003 by Siegfried
Krahl, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by Sébastien
Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.