CELEX: C1996/145/16
Language: en
Date: 1996-05-18 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 28 March 1996 in Case T-60/92: Muireann Noonan v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Recruitment - Competition for category C - Refusal to admit to the competition - Candidates holding a university degree)

No C 145/8            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18 . 5 . 96
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             The applicants claim that the Court should :
                      of 28 March 1996
                                                                     — annul Commission Decision K(95 ) 3319 final, of
in Case T-60/92 : Muireann Noonan v. Commission of the                    29 November 1 995 on special depreciation allowances
                 European Communities ( 1 )                               for aircraft pursuant to paragraph 82 f of the German
(Officials — Recruitment — Competition for category C —                   Einkommensteuerdurchfuhrungsverordnung ('EStDV'
Refusal to admit to the competition — Candidates holding a               — income tax implementation Regulation ), inasmuch as
                       university degree)                                 that decision concerns the extension of the validity of
                                                                          that provision from 1 January 1995 to 31 December
                          ( 96/C 145/16 )
                                                                          1999 ,
               (Language of the case: Englisb)                       — order the Commission to pay the costs.
In Case T-60/92 : Muireann Noonan, a member of the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
temporary staff of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities, represented by James O'Reilly, Senior                   The applicants are an association of airlines and one of its
Counsel, of the Irish Bar, and at the hearing by Onno                members. The membership of the association comprises all
Brouwer, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service           airlines engaged in the provision of supraregional and
                                                                     international air services which are not State-owned and do
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1
Rue Glesener, against the Commission of the European                 not have their seat in Germany ( including Lufthansa ,
Communities ( Agent: John Forman ) — action for the                  through its subsidiary Condor Flugdienst GmbH ). The
annulment of the decision of the Selection Board in Open             applicants contended in the proceeding conducted by the
Competition COM/C/741 not to admit the applicant to the              Commission that the period of validity of paragraph 82 f of
                                                                     the EStDV should be extended .
competition, notified to her on 9 June 1992 — the Court of
First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio,             Paragraph 82 f of the EStDV regulates the way in which the
President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H.                cost of acquisition of aircraft may be written down over the
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 March 1 996 , in         course of their normal useful life, that is to say, in the
which it:
                                                                     context of the computation of the profits of an undertaking.
                                                                     The provision affords airlines, to a certain extent, an option
1 . Annuls the decision of the Selection Board in Open               as to the way in which they spread their depreciation volume
    Competition COM/C/741 refusing to admit the                      over the period of depreciation .
    applicant to the tests in the competition.
                                                                     The applicants consider that the contested decision infringes
2 . Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                          the rules on competence laid down by the EC Treaty . They
                                                                     argue that paragraph 82 f of the EStDV forms an inherent
H OJ No C 258 , 7 . 10 . 1992 .                                      part of the German tax system . They contend that
                                                                     interference in the tax systems of the Member States is
                                                                     permissible only for the purposes of the approximation of
                                                                     laws, and not for the purposes of monitoring aid.
                                                                     The contested decision breaches the obligation to provide a
         Action brought on 28 February 1996 by                       statement of reasons pursuant to Article 190 of the EC
Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher Luftfahrt-Unternehmen and              Treaty:
      Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH against the
        Commission of the European Communities                       — its wording and structure are such as to render the
                                                                         arguments contained in it incomprehensible,
                        ( Case T-25/96 )
                          ( 96/C 145/17)                             — the Commission made no findings of fact capable of
                                                                         verification in relation to any tax advantage for
              (Language of the case: German)                              undertakings, any loss of revenue for the State, any
                                                                         distortion of competition and/or any restriction on trade
                                                                         between Member States,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    — the Commission assumed, on the basis of an error in
Instance of the European Communities on 28 February                      reasoning, that Germany had acknowledged that
1996 by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher Luftfahrt­                     paragraph 82 f of the EStDV was in the nature of an aid
Unternehmen, Bonn, and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft                      measure ,
mbH, Langenhagen ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
represented by Dr Gerrit Schohe and Dr Philipp von Dietze,           — the Commission left out of account several expert's
Rechtsanwàlte, Hamburg, with an address for service in                   reports stating that paragraph 82 f of the EStDV does
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden, 34 b, rue                      not under any circumstances give rise to any tax
Philippe II .                                                            advantage or loss of revenue for the State but merely