CELEX: C1996/064/47
Language: en
Date: 1996-03-02 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 10 January 1996 by Roland Haas and four others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-3/96)

No C 64/24             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    2 . 3 . 96
 search for a successful means of privatization. By opening           The applicants claim that the Court should :
two sets of proceedings and not joining them in any way, the
 Commission artificially divided a subject-matter that was
 one and the same. The Decision should be set aside by                — order the Commission to pay the additional
reason of that unlawful division of the proceedings .                     remuneration resulting from applying the Berlin
                                                                          weighting for Germany to the part of the applicants '
                                                                          remuneration transferred in German marks during the
Article 2 of the Decision requires repayment of the alleged               period from 1 October 1990 to 31 December 1994,
aids by the undertakings concerned . As stated above, the
two sets of proceedings are inseparably related . In the event
of a court decision in favour of privatization in principle, the
loans granted would be set off and the second proceeding              — order the Commission to pay interest for delay on such
would become irrelevant. In this situation, the applicant is              additional remuneration at 10% per annum,
obliged to challenge the Commission Decision of
 18 October 1995 . In order to provide effective legal
protection for the applicant, either the investigation or the         — in so far as necessary, annul the Commission Decisions
repayment obligation in Article 2 should have been                        of 9 March 1995 and 4 October 1995 , rejecting the
suspended pending the court decision concerning                           applicants' claim and their complaint respectively,
privatization.
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The Commission did not give the applicant a proper hearing
before making its Decision, and did not send the views of
competitors to the applicant for comment.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The loans granted did not constitute aid within the meaning
of Article 4 (c ) of the ECSC Treaty. That was apparent from
                                                                     The applicants, who are Commission officials employed in
the facts, the Commission having misunderstood the                    Luxembourg, state that, using their right under Annex VII
circumstances which led the Region of Bavaria to grant the
                                                                     to the Staff Regulations, they had part of their remuneration
loans . From the legal point of view, an aid can only exist if a     transferred to Germany. Under Article 17 ( 3 ) of Annex VII,
private investor in a similar position would not have made a
                                                                     the amounts transferred were adjusted by the coefficient
similar loan . That requirement was not satisfied in this
case .
                                                                     resulting from the ratio between the weighting for Germany
                                                                     and the weighting for Luxembourg. Until 1 July 1994, the
                                                                     date from which Council Regulation ( ECSC, EC, Euratom )
                                                                     No 3161 /94 of 19 December 1994 adjusting, with effect
                                                                     from 1 July 1 994, the remuneration and pensions of officials
                                                                     and other servants of the European Communities and the
                                                                     weightings applied thereto ( OJ No L 335 , 1994, p. 1 ) took
                                                                     effect, the weighting for Germany had remained fixed at the
                                                                     Bonn level, although Berlin had been proclaimed the capital
                                                                     of Germany on 3 October 1990 . The applicants consider
                                                                     that they are entitled to additional payments, reflecting the
                                                                     weighting for Germany calculated at the Berlin level, in
Action brought on 10 January 1996 by Roland Haas and                 respect of the part of their remuneration transferred to
four others against the Commission of the European                   Germany as from 1 October 1990 . Their claims to that
                           Communities                               effect have, however, been rejected by the Commission .
                          ( Case T-3/96 )
                            ( 96/C 64/47 )
                                                                     The applicants maintain that the rejection infringes
                                                                     Articles 63 and 65a of the Staff Regulations . Under those
                                                                     provisions, the weighting for each Member State is to be
                (Language of the case: French)                       fixed in relation to the cost of living in its capital; Berlin
                                                                     became the capital of Germany on 3 October 1990 . They
                                                                     argue that the Commission was not entitled to use a
An action against the Commission of the European                     Regulation which failed to provide for retrospective
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    calculation of the weighting at the Berlin level as from
Instance of the European Communities on 10 January 1996              1 October 1990, and is obliged to recalculate the coefficient
by Roland Haas, Hans-Werner Schmidt, Siegfried                       affecting the portions of salary transferred as from
Schweikle, Albert Veith and Horst Wohlfeil , resident in             3 October 1990 and to pay them the difference .
Luxembourg, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1                They also argue that the Commission has disregarded the
Rue Glesener.                                                        effects of the judgments in Cases T-64/92 and T-536/93 , in
 ---pagebreak--- 2 . 3 . 96           1 EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 64/25
which the Court of First Instance held that amending                        Removal from the register of Case T-84/95 ( )
Regulations which, after 3 October 1990, fixed a weighting                                       ( 96/C 64/49 )
for Germany by reference to the cost of living in Bonn were
unlawful; the Commission applied Regulation ( ECSC, EC,                             (Language of the case: French)
Euratom ) No 3161 /94, thereby remedying the illegality
which had been established only as from 1 July 1994 .                 By order of 12 January 1996 the President of the First
The applicants also allege an infringement of the principle of        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
equal treatment, since, as from 1 October 1990, they did not
enjoy a purchasing power equivalent to that of other                  T-84/95 : Rene Bebin v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities .
officials who did not transfer part of their remuneration to
Germany.                                                              0 ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
Finally, the Commission failed to ensure that the weighting
for Germany was fixed, in accordance with the Staff
Regulations, at the level of the capital, Berlin, thereby
infringing its duty to have due regard for the interests of
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-138/95 ( ] )
officials. Nor did it bring any action for the annulment of the
Regulation in question, even though it was clearly unlawful;                                     ( 96/C 64/50 )
it thereby failed in its task of ensuring the observance of
Community law, a task which also falls within the duty to                          (Language of the case: German)
have due regard for the interests of officials, when the
persons towards whom the unlawful provision and                       By order of 16 January 1996 the President of the First
secondary legislation is directed are officials and other             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
servants .
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-138/95 : Friedrich Engelking v. Council of the European
                                                                      Union and Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
        Removal from the register of Case T-276/94 (')
                            ( 96/C 64/48 )
               (Language of the case: French)                               Removal from the register of Case T-2 13/95 R
                                                                                                  ( 96/C 64/51 )
By order of 23 January 1996 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
T-276/94 : Adam Buick v. Commission of the European
Communities .
                                                                      By order of 24 January 1996 the President of the First
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
( J ) OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .                                  Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-213/95 R: Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf v.
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities.