Case T-427/05: Action brought on  29 November 2005  — Vienne and Others v Parliament
Date: 2006-01-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, legal aid, regulations for civil servants, transfer of pension rights

C 22/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.1.2006

The fourth plea criticises the decision for taking the view that
the beneficiaries of the alleged aid are quoted small or medium-
sized capitalisation companies when in fact the real benefici-
aries of the relief are merely the subscribers to the funds or
open-ended investment companies, which means, potentially,
anybody: accordingly, the relief does not target undertakings
and is not selective. The Commission has not demonstrated
that direct relief for subscribers gave rise to indirect relief for
the said companies.

that

its economic impact

The fifth plea again alleges infringement of Article 87 EC and
an inadequate statement of reasons for the Commission's deci-
the measure has an impact on intra-Community
sion that
competition, despite the fact
is
minimal
(according to the Commission itself, amounting in
2004 to Euro 1 100 000.00). Nor has the Commission clarified
the classification as operational aid, since the replacement tax is
not a management cost for intermediaries who manage collec-
tive investment instruments. It is clear from the purpose of
strengthening small and medium-sized capitalisation companies
that, as far as the latter are concerned, the measure is of a
structural nature.

— annul the implied decision refusing assistance under Article

24 of the Staff Regulations;

— order the European Parliament to pay collective compensa-
tion for the damage suffered by the applicants as a result;

— order the defendant to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are in a situation analogous to that of the appli-
cants in Case T-359/05 and invoke, in support of their applica-
tion, the same pleas and arguments invoked by the applicants
in that case.

The sixth plea criticises the part of the decision that rejects
recourse to a derogation under Article 87(3)(c) EC. The aim of
widening the asset base of companies with limited capitalisa-
tion, which find it more difficult than widely quoted companies
to gain access to the venture-capital market,
is in fact an
economic policy objective which displays links with the above-
mentioned provision allowing derogations.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 November
2005 — Rica Foods v Commission

(Case T-87/01) (1)

(2006/C 22/43)

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be
removed from the register.

Action brought on 29 November 2005 — Vienne and
Others v Parliament

(1) OJ C 186, 30.6.2001.

(Case T-427/05)

(2006/C 22/42)

Language of the case: French

Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 November 2005
— Rica Foods v Commission

Parties

Applicants: Philippe Vienne (Bascharage, Luxembourg) and
Others (represented by: G. Bounéou, F. Frabetti, lawyers)

(Case T -211/01) (1)

(2006/C 22/44)

Language of the case: Dutch

Defendant: European Parliament

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be
removed from the register.

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

(1) OJ C 317, 10.11.2001.