do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-249/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by a judgment of the Cour du travail de Liège, section de Neufchâteau, of 9 June 2004 in the case of José Allard against the Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (INASTI)
Date: 2004-07-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, self-employed person, social-security benefit, social-security contribution

C 190/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.7.2004

Reference for a preliminary ruling by a judgment of the
Cour du travail de Liège, section de Neufchâteau, of 9 June
2004 in the case of José Allard against the Institut national
indépendants
d'assurances

sociales pour

travailleurs

(INASTI)

(Case C-249/04)

(2004/C 190/23)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by a judgment of the Cour du travail de
Liège (Employment Court, Liège), section de Neufchâteau, of 9
June 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 11
June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of José Allard
against the Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travail-
leurs indépendants (INASTI) on the following questions:

1. Do Articles 13 et seq. of Council Regulation (EEC) No
1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons and their families
moving within the Community (1) preclude a contribution
such as the reduction contribution under Royal Decree No
289 of 31 March enacting certain temporary measures for
the reduction of the income of self-employed persons with a

view to reducing the public debt burden and ensuring the
financial equilibrium of social security schemes for self-
employed persons from being calculated in such a way as to
include in income from an occupation the income which a
self-employed person has obtained by carrying on an occu-
pation in the territory of a Member State other than the
State of taxation in circumstances where the self-employed
person may not, as a result of paying that contribution,
claim any social or other benefit at the expense of that
State?

2. Do the Treaty of Rome of 25 March 1957 establishing the
European Community, and in particular Articles 39 and 43
thereof (formerly Articles 48 and 52), preclude a contribu-
tion calculated on that basis from being imposed on self-
employed persons who exercise their right to freedom of
movement?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
application of social security schemes to employed persons and
their families moving within the Community, as amended and
updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983
(OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6, Annex 1)
Case T-181/04: Action brought on 17 May 2004 by Nathalie Heinen against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-07-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), assistant, competition (EU), equal treatment

24.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/19

Action brought on 17 May 2004 by Daniel Surget against
the Council of the European Union and the Commission
of the European Communities

(Case T-171/04)

(2004/C 190/31)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17
May 2004 by Daniel Surget, residing in Cherbourg (France),
represented by Jean-François Péricaud, lawyer.

Action brought on 17 May 2004 by Nathalie Heinen
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-181/04)

(2004/C 190/32)

(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 17 May 2004 by Nathalie Heinen,
residing in Ottignies
represented by Sébastien
Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

(Belgium),

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the selection board in Competition
COM/PB/02 not to include the applicant's name on the
reserve list;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— order the Council and the Commission jointly and severally
to pay the sum of EUR 909 428, or in the alternative
EUR 740 190, with interest in either case at the legal rate
from the date this action was brought, by way of damages;

— order the Council and the Commission to bear the costs

jointly and severally.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The pleas in law and principal arguments are the same as those
relied on in Case T-440/03 Arizmendi and Others v Council
and Commission (1).

(1) OJ C 59, 6. 3. 2004, p. 31.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant, who took the tests in internal competition
COM/PB/02 to move from Category C to Category B, contests
the decision of the selection board not to place her on the
reserve list drawn up following that competition on the basis
of the marks she was awarded in the oral test which, although
higher than those required in theory, were insufficient.

In support of her claims the applicant pleads breach of the
notice of competition and breach of the principle of equality of
treatment and non-discrimination.

In that connection the applicant explains that although the
notice of competition provided that the candidates had to indi-
cate on their application form their chosen language for the
pre-selection tests and for the oral test, with the option of
choosing a different language for the oral test, that decision
being final, certain candidates were allowed to change language
after submitting their application form, some of them on the
day of the oral test itself.