Case C-269/06: Action brought on 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Centre de traduction des organes de l'Union européenne (CDT)
Date: 2006-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), pension scheme, regulations for civil servants, social-security benefit

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/13

2. Annulment of the Commission's decision of 2 July 2002
in so far as it affects the

(Case C.37.519 — Methionin)
appellant.

Action brought on 15 June 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Centre de traduction des
organes de l'Union européenne (CDT)

In the alternative, annulment or reduction of
imposed on the appellant by Article 3 of that decision;

the fine

3 In the alternative to 2 above, referral of the matter back to
the Court of First Instance for determination in accordance
with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

4. The Commission to pay the claimant's costs before the
Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice in any event.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant makes four pleas on appeal:

— First, that the Court of First Instance disregarded the prin-
ciple of certainty (nulla poena sine lege certa) in relation to
penal provisions, and consequently wrongly denied the
unlawfulness of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17.

— Second, that the Court of First Instance distorted the facts
in its assessment of the duration of the infringement, and
infringed the presumption of innocence (in dubio pro reo)
and the basic right to a fair hearing.

— Third, that the Court of First Instance infringed the prin-
ciple of proportionality (in the form of the principle that
punishment should be proportionate to fault), by setting
the basic amount of the fine at EUR 30 million, even
though the infringement had little impact on the price of
methionine. At the same time, the Court infringed the duty
to state reasons by stating contradictory reasons.

— Fourth, the Court of First Instance did not reduce the addi-
tion to the basic amount of the fine, which is designed to
have a sufficiently deterrent effect, in accordance with the
difference in size between the appellant and Aventis, and
thereby infringed the principle of equal treatment.

(1) OJ 2006 C 131, p. 37.

(Case C-269/06)

(2006/C 190/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J.-F. Pasquier and D. Martin, Agents)

Defendant: Centre de traduction des organes de l'Union europé-
enne (CDT)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the CDT's decision not to pay employer's contribu-

tions to the Community pension scheme;

— order the CDT to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

‘agencies
Under Article 83a(2) of the new Staff Regulations,
which do not receive a subsidy from the general budget of the
European Union shall pay into that budget the entire amount
of the contributions needed to finance the scheme.’

On that basis, the Commission requested that CDT pay into the
budget sums corresponding to the employer's contribution to
the pension scheme for 2005 and subsequent years.

The CDT nonetheless refused, denying that
it was a self-
financed agency. The CDT claims that it should be regarded as
a subsidised agency. According to the Commission, however, it
is not in dispute that the CDT has received no operating subsi-
dies from the general budget of the European Union since
1998;
it has received merely a remuneration commensurate
with its services to inter-institutional cooperation in the form
of translation.