Case T-358/03: Action brought on 17 October 2003 by Siegfried Krahl against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-01-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), allowances and expenses, regulations for civil servants

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.

C 7/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.1.2004

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision not to reimburse to the applicant his
accommodation expenses of EUR 4 200 per month in
full;

— annul the contested Commission Decisions specifically to
the extent that they apply interest at a default rate of
8,04 %;

— order the Commission to pay its own costs and those

incurred by the applicant.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant submits that the
defendant infringed Articles 5 and 23 of Annex X to the Staff
Regulations,
in so far as it may not refuse to reimburse
his accommodation expenses when it did not provide any
accommodation and offered no alternative.

Action brought on 27 October 2003 by GRAFTECH
INTERNATIONAL LTD. against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-359/03)

(2004/C 7/74)

(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 27 October 2003 by GRAFTECH
INTERNATIONAL LTD., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, rep-
resented by K.P.E. Lasok QC and Brian Hartnett, Barristers with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested Commission Decisions dated 18 July
2001, 23 July 2001, 9 August 2001, 18 August 2003,
11 September 2003 and 18 September 2003 requiring
GTI to perform its obligations under the Decision of
18 July 2001 or post a bank guarantee or face imminent
enforcement of the Decision of 18 July 2001 as of
September 2003;

— annul the contested Commission Decisions specifically to
the extent that they apply interest at a rate of 6,04 %
when current market interest rates are significantly lower;

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the Decision made on 18 July 2001 the Commission found
that the applicant and seven other undertakings had infringed
Article 81 of the EC treaty by participating in a complex of
agreements and concerted practices in the graphite electrodes
sector. The same Decision imposed a fine on the applicant and
required that it be paid within 3 months of notification with
interest of 8,04 % payable if the fine was not paid by the stated
date. This Decision was notified to the applicant under cover
of a letter dated 23 July 2003 which also indicated that if the
applicant brought proceedings before the Court of First
Instance against the imposition of the fine, no enforcement
proceedings would be taken as long as the case was pending
before the court, on condition that the applicant paid interest
on the amount of the fine at a rate of 6,04 % and provided a
bank guarantee for the amount of the fine. The applicant
made representations to the Commission proposing different
payment
the
Commission dated 9 August 2001. The applicant also intro-
duced proceedings against the Decision of 18 July 2001
imposing the fine (1). Further proposals by the applicant on
payment facilities were rejected by the Commission by letters
dated 18 August 2003, 11 September 2003 and 18 September
2003.

terms, which were rejected by a letter of

By the present action the applicant attacks all the Decisions
concerning payment terms. It submits that it is an error of law,
on the part of the Commission, to consider that no security
other than a bank guarantee could be accepted by the
Commission. It also submits that the Decision of 18 August
2003 infringes the principle of proportionality by failing to
achieve a fair balance between the interest of the parties and
in particular the applicant’s interest in granting a lien over its
unencumbered assets instead of the bank guarantee requested
by the Commission . The applicant also invokes alleged
manifest errors of fact relating to the Commission’s finding
that the applicant has not shown that it cannot comply with
the Commission’s Decision and the Commission’s assessment
of its financial position and the value of the lien it had offered.
The applicant further submits that the Commission’s Decisions
on the applicable interest rates are manifestly erroneous
and that the Commission has breached essential procedural
failed to afford the applicant an
requirements in that
opportunity to be heard before adopting a decision to enforce
its first Decision of 18 July 2001.

it

(1) Case T-246/01 notified in OJ C 17, 19.01.2002, p. 16.