CELEX: C1997/009/35
Language: en
Date: 1997-01-11 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 8 November 1996 by Mario Costacurta against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-177/96)

11.1.97              I EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 9/ 19
 Action brought on 4 November 1996 by Georges Berthu                  Action brought on 8 November 1996 by Mario
    against the Commission of the European Communities                Costacurta against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                 Communities
                         ( Case T-175/96 )
                                                                                              ( Case T- 177/96 )
                            ( 97/C 9/34
                                                                                                  ( 97/C 9/35 )
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                      (Language of the case: French)
 An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Instance of the European Communities on 4 November
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 8 November
 1996 by Georges Berthu, residing at Chelles ( France ),
                                                                      1996 by Mario Costacurta, residing in Luxembourg,
 represented by Alexandre Varaut, of the Paris Bar.
                                                                      represented by Nicolas Decker, of the Luxembourg Bar,
                                                                      with an address for service in Luxemburg at the latter's
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Chambers, 16 avenue Marie-Therese.
— declare unlawful the decision of the Commission of                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
      16 October 1996 proposing to the Council a
      Regulation laying down a number of provisions                   — annul the decision of the Commission 's administration
      relating to the introduction of the European currency.              of 14 November 1995 , confirmed by express decision
                                                                          of the Commission of 22 July 1996, refusing the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       applicant's requests for transfers of Bfrs 60 000 per
                                                                          month, with application of the weightings for Zaire,
                                                                          for the period from March 1993 to December 1995 ,
The applicant, a Member of the European Parliament, is                    and for transfers of Bfrs 1 00 000 for the period from
opposed to the change of name of the future European                      January to August 1996,
currency from ecu to Euro, as mentioned in a proposal for
a Council Regulation laying down a number of provisions
relating to the introduction of the Euro, Article 2 of which          — consequently, order the Commission to pay the
provides that 'from 1 January 1999, all references to the                 applicant the balance due when those weightings are
ecu, within the meaning of Article 109g of the EC Treaty                  applied, amounting in total to Bfrs 4 075 352, together
. . . shall be replaced by a reference to the Euro at the rate            with interest at the legal rate with effect from
of Euro 1 for ecu 1 '.                                                    16 February 1996 , the date of the complaint which he
                                                                          submitted     under      Article  90   (2) of  the   Staff
                                                                          Regulations,
The applicant claims that the change of name of the
European currency constitutes, in legal terms, a review of            — order the Commission to pay all expenses and costs
the Treaty which cannot be carried out according to the                   incurred in relation to the proceedings.
procedure chosen by the Commission's proposal for a
Regulation, namely, that of Article 235 of the Treaty.                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Furthermore, in the French version of the Treaty, the
European currency is referred to as the 'Ecu' and that
word is not a series of initials since, in such a case, it            Following his assignment as of 16 February 1993 to the
                                                                      Commission's delegation to Kinshasa ( Zaire ), the
should have been written in upper case. Moreover, if it did
stand for 'European currency unit', there could not be an             applicant took up his duties as administrative and
accent over the letter ' E' in French .                               financial assistant on 26 March 1993 . His assignment to
                                                                      Zaire ended on 31 August 1996 .
The applicant claims, as an additional ancillary point, that          By letter of 22 July 1996 from the Director-General of
the change of name in question conceals more serious                 Personnel and Administration, the applicant's request for
breaches of the letter or spirit of the Treaty. According to         application of the weightings over that period was
the applicant, the name 'ecu' was linked, in the wording             expressly refused.
of Article 105 et seq. of the Treaty, to a relatively uniform
monetary system in which all the Member States                       The applicant contests the decision refusing application of
participated, subject to derogations enabling them to                the weightings to the transfer of part of his salary to
remain outside it .
                                                                     Kinshasa, alleging that it infringed Articles 12 and 13 of
                                                                     Annex X to the Staff Regulations .
On the other hand, the name 'Euro' runs the risk of being
associated with a different system, as yet not totally               The applicant maintains that the Commission impaired his
defined, but of which it is known that the technical                 fundamental and legitimate pecuniary rights, since he
provisions will not coincide with that of its predecessor. In        personally suffered a very considerable loss of purchasing
particular, the future 'Euro' would bring together                   power. Furthermore, he argues that in his regard the
Members who are radically different from those whose                 Commission failed to fulfil its duty to have regard for the
currencies constitute the ecu basket.                                welfare of officials : first, by publishing the weightings for
                                                                     the period from March 1993 to June 1993 30 months late
 ---pagebreak--- No C 9/20          I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11 . 1 . 97
and, secondly, by failing to take all due care or make                   levy due from the applicant or from the partnership of
every effort to be in a position to put forward a proposal               which he formed part, as the case may be, in respect
to the Council concerning the fixing of new weightings for               of the milk produced by them following the expiry of
Zaire for the periods from July 1993 to August 1996 .                    the non-marketing undertaking ( i.e. production in the
                                                                         milk marketing years 1989/1990 to 1995/ 1996
Lastly, the applicant maintains that, in his regard, the                 inclusive ), together with the interest which is due on
Commission acted contrary to the principles of non­                      that sum to those entitled to claim payment of the said
discrimination against the applicant and treated him less                supplementary levy from the applicant (5 % as from
favourably than officials in other countries who benefited               1 . September 1996 ),
from weightings in excess of 100 and part of whose
salaries, over the same period, were subject to the                 — order the Community to pay him the sum of
appropriate weightings . Although the data for the period                HF1 58 695 (the sum resulting from the application of
from July 1993 to August 1996 were not entirely reliable                 Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 over the periods
on account of the looting in Kinshasa , that situation could             following the expiry of the non-marketing
in no circumstances justify discarding the weighting factor              undertaking, during which the applicant or his
indicating that the cost of living over the preceding                    predecessor in title, as the case may be, produced no
months had been more than twice the reference level . For                milk, together with compensatory interest from the
Russia, owing to the same problems in relation to local                  date when the damage arose until the date of
currency, with effect from 1 January 1994 a weighting                    judgment in the Mulder II case ( 19 May 1992 )), with
was fixed on the basis of an economic parity expressed in                interest thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum until
US dollars .                                                             settlement in full, as laid down in the judgment in
                                                                         Mulder II,
                                                                    — order the Community to pay him the sum of
                                                                         HFl 180 322,20, representing the costs of obtaining a
                                                                         substitute reference quantity equal to the reference
Action brought on 11 November 1996 by J. Antonissen                      quantity to which the applicant would have been
against the European Community, represented by the                       entitled pursuant to Article 3a of Regulation ( EEC )
Council and the Commission of the European                               No 857/84 had he, at the time, been operating the
                          Communities                                    holding in respect of which the non-marketing
                       ( Case T-179/96 )                                 undertaking was given by Mr Herbrink in 1979,
                           ( 97/C 9/36 )
                                                                    — order the Community to pay the costs .
               (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the European Community, represented
by the Council and the Commission of the European                   These proceedings are connected with Case C-98/91
Communities, was brought before the Court of First                  Herbrink ( judgment of the Court of 27 January 1994 ).
Instance of the European Communities on 11 November                 The applicant is the successor of Mr Herbrink. Following
1996 by J. Antonissen, residing at Giethem ( the                    the judgment of the Court, Mr Herbrink was definitively
Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of           refused the allocation of a SLOM quota, on the ground
the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in                   that he no longer operated the original SLOM holding;
Luxemburg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 avenue                  the lease in respect of it was not extended, since he was
Guillaume .                                                         not in possession of a milk quota .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare that the Community is obliged to make good
    the damage which the applicant has suffered, and may
    suffer in the future, as a result of the refusal to             Action brought on 27 November 1996 by Mireille
    allocate a specific reference quantity to the applicant                   Meskens against the European Parliament
    or his predecessor in title, Mr A. A. Herbrink, since                                    Case T- 194/96 )
    the termination on 17 May 1984 of the non-marketing
    undertaking given by Mr Herbrink pursuant to                                               ( 97/C 9/37 )
    Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1087/77, on the sole
    ground that, since 1987, for reasons which cannot be                             (Language of the case: French)
    attributed to them, neither the applicant nor Mr
    Herbrink has continued to operate, either wholly or in          An action against the European Parliament was brought
    part, the holding on which Mr Herbrink produced                 before the Court of First Instance of the European
    milk prior to giving the aforementioned non-marketing           Communities on 27 November 1996 by Mireille Meskens,
    undertaking,                                                    residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis,
                                                                    Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , all of the Brussels
— order the Community to pay him the sum of                         Bar, with an address for service in Luxemburg at the
    HFl 258 565,38 , corresponding to the supplementary             offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL ., 30 rue de Cessange.