CELEX: C1997/318/54
Language: en
Date: 1997-10-18 00:00:00
Title: Action brough on 29 July 1997 by Isabel Martínez del Peral Cagigal against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-224/97)

18 . 10 . 97          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 318/27
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              there is no valid legal basis for imposing Community
                                                                         tax. As a result, there is a duty to repay the amounts
                                                                         unduly paid. The defendant has acted contrary to
— annul or at least declare invalid the decision contained               Community law, in particular the Protocol on
     in the defendant's letter of 30 April 1997 refusing to              Privileges and Immunities, legislation implementing
     repay the Community tax which the applicant has                     that Protocol and Article 212 of the EC Treaty
     paid since 1989,                                                    by deciding to withhold Community tax from the
                                                                         earnings of freelance interpreters, such as the
                                                                         applicant, working for it;
— declare that there is no valid legal basis for imposing
     Community tax in the case of the applicant, who
     works for the defendant as a freelance interpreter, and        3 . the decision, irrespective of its form, by which the
     that the withholding of Community tax from his                      Parliament laid down that freelance interpreters should
     earnings is invalid and unlawful,                                   be charged Community tax is invalid for want of a
                                                                         valid legal basis. In so far as that decision purports to
                                                                         be the basis for charging Community tax on the
— in so far as is necessary, declare invalid the European                applicant's earnings and for refusing to repay him the
     Parliament's decision subjecting the earnings of                    tax, the applicant asks the Court to declare that
                                                                         decision invalid or at least to declare that no reliance
     freelance interpreters to Community tax and Article 8
     of the Agreement with the AIIC,                                     can be placed in it vis-a-vis the applicant ( objection of
                                                                         illegality, Article 184 of the EC Treaty );
— order that the Community tax paid by the applicant                4. Article 8 of the Agreement with the AIIC, which forms
     since 1 January 1989 be repaid together with interest               an integral part of the agreements concluded by the
     at 8 % or at the applicable legal rate,                             applicant with the defendant, is void or at least
                                                                         invalid . Hence the Court should declare that no
                                                                         reliance can be placed in it vis-a-vis the applicant since
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                 it lacks any legal basis;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 5 . Article 8 and the procedure for repayment contained
                                                                         in Article 8 ( 3 ) of the Agreement with the AIIC, as
                                                                         introduced as from 1984, are also in breach of the
The case is concerned with the imposition of Community                   principles of proportionality and equal treatment.
tax on the earnings of freelance interpreters from their
work for Community institutions, more specifically the
work performed by the applicant for the European
Parliament.
Since the applicant — a Netherlands national — is                   Action brough on 29 July 1997 by Isabel Martinez del
resident in Switzerland, all his earnings are subject to            Peral Cagigal against the Commission of the European
Swiss income tax. Since 1984 Community tax has been                                             Communities
withheld from his earnings as a freelance interpreter of the                                 ( Case T-224/97)
European Parliament, resulting in that income being
subject to double taxation .                                                                   ( 97/C 318/54 )
The defendant's decision contained in the letter of 30 April                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
 1997 refusing to grant the applicant's claim to repayment
of Community tax since 1989 and maintaining the
imposition of Community tax in future should be annulled
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
or at least declared invalid on the following grounds :
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 29 July 1997
                                                                    by Isabel Martinez del Peral Cagigal, residing at Brussels,
                                                                    represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and Alex
 1 . the defendant's reliance on Council Regulation ( EEC )          Subirachs Amigo, both of the Barcelona Bar, with an
      No 260/68 and on the Protocol on Privileges and               address for service at 78 Avenue d'Audeghem, 1040
      Immunities is to no avail, since the applicant is not an      Brussels .
      official or other servant of the • Community and,
      accordingly, reference thereto cannot serve as the basis
      for refusing repayment;                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
2 . the defendant's refusal to repay the Community tax               1 . annul the Commission's decision refusing to reclassify
      paid by the applicant since 1989 is unlawful since                  the applicant in another step;
 ---pagebreak--- C 318/28              1 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 18 . 10 . 97
2 . declare that the applicant is entitled to have her initial         The applicants claim that the Court should:
    classification reviewed as requested by way of the
    document of 21 June 1996 ;
                                                                       — declare that the Commission has failed to act,
3 . order the European Commission to pay:                              — order the Commission to pay the costs .
    — the difference in the applicant's salary as from the
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         date when the decision amending the criteria for
         classification began to produce its effects, that is
         5 October 19 95 , together with the accrued                   The applicants complain that the defendant has failed
         interest,                                                     to enforce the judgments of the Court of First Instance
                                                                       of 29 June 1993 ( 1 ) and 18 September 1996 (2 ). Those
    — ECU 1 000 by way of compensation for the non­                    judgments were delivered following a complaint made
         material damage caused, and                                   against certain undertakings alleging that they had
                                                                       colluded to secure exclusive control of the market for
                                                                       Japanese vehicles in France by excluding products of the
     — the costs of these proceedings .                                makes imported by the applicants, and that they had
                                                                       organized the division between them of sub-quotas under
                                                                       a system known as 'voluntary limitation ', eliminating all
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    competition .
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those               The applicants claim that, following the annulment by the
relied on in Case T-16/97 (').                                         aforementioned judgment of 29 June 1993 of the decision
                                                                       rejecting the complaints, the Commission maintained its
                                                                       position in a letter of 9 March 1994 which formed the
In particular, the applicant considers that the varying of             subject matter of a fresh action for annulment culminating
an   internal    Commission decision as a         result of the        in the judgment of 18 September 1996 , likewise referred
annulment by the Court of previous legislation, where                  to above, by which the decision rejecting the complaints
such legislation was the basis for an erroneous                        was annulled .
classification, constitutes a new fact capable of starting the
period for lodging the complaint running again.
                                                                       In those circumstances, by letter of 11 April 1997, Asia
                                                                       Motor France, Mr Cesbron, EAS and Monin Automobiles
(') OJ C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .                                    and their liquidators requested the defendant to send to
                                                                       the French importers of the Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi ,
                                                                       Toyota and Nissan marks a statement of objections, in
                                                                       order that, at the very least, a finding should finally
                                                                        be made as to the existence of the restrictive practice
                                                                       complained of and that steps should be taken to impose
                                                                        penalties in respect of it.
Action brought on 30 July 1997 by Asia Motor France
 and others against the Commission of the European
                             Communities                                Following the expiry of a period of two months, the
                                                                        applicants brought the present action .
                          ( Case T-225/97)
                            ( 97/C 318/55 )                             (') Case T-7/92 ([ 1993 ] ECR 11-669 ).
                                                                        ( 2 ) Case T-387/94 ([ 19961 ECR 11-961 ).
                 (Language of the case: French)
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Instance of the European Communities on 30 July 1997                   Action brought on 30 July 1997 by Guerin Automobiles
 by Asia Motor France, the principal place of business of                    against the Commission of the European Communities
 which is at Livange ( Luxembourg ), Jean-Michel Cesbron,                                          Case T-226/97 )
 businessman , trading as JMC Automobiles, residing at
 Livange ( Luxembourg ), Monin Automobiles, the principal                                           ( 97/C 318/56
 place of business of which is at Bourg-de-Peage ( France ),
 and Europe Auto Service ( EAS ), the principal place of                                  (Language of the case: French)
 business of which is at Livange ( Luxembourg ), represented
 by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an
 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   An action against the Commission of the European
 Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Beatrix de Bourbon .                             Communities was brought before the Court of First