Case C-135/06 P: Appeal brought on  10 March 2006  by Roderich Weißenfels against the judgment of the Court of First Instance delivered on  25 January 2006  in Case T-33/04 Roderich Weißenfels v European Parliament
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), child, disabled person, family benefit

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/13

Pleas in law and main arguments

In this case Article 16(1) of Directive 2001/19/EC of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 provides
that Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
Directive before 1 January 2003 and that they are to inform
the Commission thereof forthwith.

The Commission considers that Greece has not yet taken the
measures necessary as regards the profession of veterinary
surgeon.

(1) OJ L 206 of 31/07/2001

4. Annul the decision of the respondent of 28 April 2004, as a
result of which the special aid for the severely handicapped
which was granted by another source to Frederik, the son of
like
the appellant, was declared to be an ‘allowance of
nature’, within the meaning of Article 67(2) of the Staff
Regulations, to the double child allowance which had been
granted to the appellant;

5. Order the respondent to pay the appellant compensation (in
the alternative: the statutory interest which has accrued) in
respect of the harm incurred as a result of the fact that parts
of his income in the form of double child allowance were
unjustly retained since 1 December 1998;

6. Order the respondent to pay the costs of appeal and at first
instance, including the expenses incurred by the appellant.

Appeal brought on 10 March 2006 by Roderich Weißen-
fels against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
delivered on 25 January 2006 in Case T-33/04 Roderich
Weißenfels v European Parliament

(Case C-135/06 P)

(2006/C 108/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Roderich Weißenfels (represented by: G. Maximini,
Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

1. Annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber) of 25 January 2006 in Case T-33/04 (Weißenfels
v European Parliament) (1), notified on 31 January 2006;

2. Annul the decision of the respondent of 26 June 2003, as a
result of which the special aid for the severely handicapped
which was awarded from another source to the appellant's
son Frederik was deducted from the double child allowance
granted to the appellant under Article 67(3) of the Staff
Regulations;

3. Annul the implied decision of refusal of the respondent to
pay back to the appellant, in accordance with his applica-
tion of 4 June 2003, the double child allowance which had
been unjustly retained in the past;

Pleas in law and main arguments

In his appeal, the appellant contends that the Court of First
Instance made procedural errors as, in its disputed judgment, it
did not properly consider the claims of the appellant and
unlawfully limited the scope of his application. The finding of
the Court of First Instance that a claim for compensation was
expressed only in the wording of the reply was erroneous, as
the relevant original claim in the application is, as regards its
content, to be considered as a claim for compensation.

At a formal level, the Court of First Instance did not examine
the similarity of the allowances in question — as is a require-
ment for the application of Article 67(2) of the Staff Regula-
tions — and did not recognise this at a material level. At a
formal level, there could not be any ‘allowances of like nature’,
as the Luxembourg special allowance is in no way linked to the
status of being employed. At a material level, the difference in
purpose of the two allowances should be taken into account:
whereas only the appellant himself has a claim to the allowance
under Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations for the purpose of
receiving it — independently of his place of residence — only
the person who is entitled — thus, the son of the appellant —
has a claim to the independent Luxembourg special allowance,
which is for the purpose of his care, so long as he lives in
Luxembourg.

Application of Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations is therefore
ruled out, as neither at a formal nor at a material level is there
an allowance of like nature which is paid from a separate
source, within the meaning of the Community law in this
regard. The contrary view taken by the Court of First Instance
therefore infringes Community law.

(1) OJ 2006 C 74, p. 18.