CELEX: C1997/054/60
Language: en
Date: 1997-02-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 10 December 1996 by Elliniki Viomikhania Oplon (EVO) AE v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Case T-220/96)

No C 54/36           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22 . 2 . 97
adversely affect the applicant, the grounds on which they           The applicant further pleads that there has been a failure
are based are not stated and, consequently, they infringe           to take into account his entitlement to a pension .
the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 25           Although he applied for the transfer of the pension
of the Staff Regulations . Moreover, the administration             entitlement acquired by him in Germany, he received, by
committed a manifest error of assessment in considering             letter of 1 April 1996, a breakdown showing only the
that the applicant's qualifications were not exceptional for        reimbursement of his personal pension contributions . No
the purpose of applying Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff                transfer of his pension entitlement has been effected and
Regulations.                                                        he now enjoys only an extremely modest pension
                                                                    entitlement within the German system, whilst being
                                                                    deprived of any entitlement under the pension system of
                                                                    the Community civil service .
Action brought on 27 December 1996 by 'Y' against the
                    European Parliament
                      ( Case T-219/96 )
                         ( 97/C 54/59 )                             Action brought on 10 December 1996 by Elliniki
                                                                    Viomikhania Oplon ( EVO ) AE v. Council of the European
               (Language of the case: French)                          Union and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                           ( Case T-220/96 )
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European                                             ( 97/C 54/60 )
Communities on 27 December 1996 by 'Y', residing in
Brussels, represented by Gerard Collin, of the Brussels Bar,                        (Language of the case: Greek)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 rue de Cessange .                      An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                    the Commission of the European Communities was
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         brought before the Court of First Instance on 10 December
                                                                    1996 by Elliniki Viomikhania Oplon ( EVO ) AE, a
— order the European Parliament to reimburse to the                 company governed by Greek law having its seat in Athens,
    applicant the sums improperly withheld from his                 represented by Mikhail Stathopoulos and Ioannis
    salary between 1 November 1993 and 19 January                   Anagnostou , of the Athens Bar, with an address for service
     1996, together with default interest from the dates            in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May.
    when they respectively became due and payable,
— order the European Parliament to pay compensation in              The applicant claims that the Court should :
    the provisional sum of Bfrs 3 000 000, subject to
    increase during the course of the proceedings,                  1 . delcare the application admissible,
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.                   2 . order the defendants, for the reason set out in the
                                                                         application, to pay it US $ 75 451 500, or the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      equivalent in ecus on the date of payment according to
                                                                         the highest official rate of US $ to ecu, or, in the
On 6 October 1993 the appointing authority decided to                    alternative ECU 60 478 770 at the current official rate
suspend the applicant from his duties and to withhold half               of US $ to ecu, with interest at 8 % , as is usual in
of his basic salary, pursuant to Article 88 of the Staff                 international contracts, from the date on which the
Regulations. On 6 June 1994, the applicant was convicted                 application was lodged to the date of full settlement,
of an offence by the Tribunal Correctionnel de Bruxelles                 against the transfer to them of the applicant's claim
(Brussels Criminal Court ).                                              against the Central Bank of Iraq in that amount,
Under the third and fifth paragraphs of Article 88 of the
Staff Regulations, the applicant's situation should have            3 . order the defendants to pay the costs and fees of the
been definitively resolved within four months from the                   applicant's lawyers .
date when the verdict reached by the criminal court
hearing the case became final . Since his conviction became         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
final on 21 June 1994, the applicant's situation should
have been definitively resolved by no later than 21 October         The applicant company manufactures and trades in
1994 . The time limit of four months was clearly not                weapons and munitions . Under a contract of 12 January
complied with, since the applicant became aware on                  1987 it sold to Iraq munitions, which it supplied over the
5 February 1996 of the disciplinary decision removing him           period 25 October 1987 to 30 May 1989 , for a price
from his post which the appointing authority had taken              which was to be paid by the Central Bank of Iraq by way
on 19 January 1996 . The applicant is applying, pursuant            of irrevocable guaranteed letter of credit. The Central
to the fourth paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff                  Bank of Iraq refused, however, to pay, relying on
Regulations, for reimbursement of the sums withheld from            Resolution No 660 of 6 August 1990 of the United
his remuneration; those sums were improperly withheld               Nations Security Council, on the basis of which Council
between 1 November 1993 and 19 January 1996 .                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 2340/90 was adopted, prohibiting
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 2 . 97           EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 54/37
all trade with Iraq and Kuwait. The applicant sued in the                        the decision not to promote her to grade C 1 for the
Greek courts and succeeded in obtaining a judgment                               year 1996 (published in Administrative Notice No 933
ordering the Central Bank of Iraq to pay it the amount of                        of 9 April 1996 ),
US $ 75 451 500, but execution of that judgment proved
impossible . The damage suffered by the applicant consists
precisely in the fact that it is impossible to enforce its                  — order the Commission to pay the costs.
claim. The applicant transfers the said contractual claim
against the Central Bank of Iraq to the European Union                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
and asks it, on the basis of Article 215 of the Treaty, to
pay it compensation of an equal amount.
                                                                            The applicant maintains that it is an established fact,
                                                                            which the Commission does not challenge in the contested
The applicant maintains that all the conditions giving rise                 decision, that she was of greater merit than other officials
to the non-contractual liability of the European Union are                  who were promoted to grade C 1 during the 1996
met. In particular it maintains that when Regulation                        promotions exercise . She argues that, accordingly, by
( EEC ) No 2340/90 (') was adopted the defendant                            refusing her that promotion, the Commission acted
Community bodies infringed the general principles and                       contrary to the principle of non-discrimination and
rules of Community law, specifically the principles of                      infringed Article 45 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations .
protection of property, equal treatment and the
prohibition of discrimination, prohibition of abuse of
powers, proportionality, protection of economic freedom
and protection of legitimate expectations .
The applicant considers that there is no need for breach of                 Action brought on 2 January 1997 by Jean-Luc Delhaye
a superior rule of law for the protection of the individual,                     against Commission of the European Communities
as has been held in the case-law of the Court with regard
                                                                                                     ( Case T-l/97)
to legislative acts, since Regulation ( EEC ) No 2340/90
does not constitute a legislative act, but in substance an                                            ( 97/C 54/62 )
act of a direct and individual character.
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
O Council Regulation ( EEC) No 2340/90 of 8 August 1990
    preventing trade within the Community relating to Iraq and
    Kuwait, ( OJ No L 213 , 9 . 8 . 1990, p. 1 ).                           An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                            Instance of the European Communities on 2 January 1997
                                                                            by Jean-Luc Delhaye, resident in Thieu, Belgium,
                                                                            represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                            address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                            Christian Kremer, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
Action brought on 27 December 1996 by Immacolata
Manzo against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        ( Case T-221/96 )
                                                                            — annul the Commission's decision of 25 September
                           ( 97/C 54/61 )
                                                                                 1996, notified to the applicant on 1 October 1996,
                                                                                rejecting his complaint of 28 May 1996 ( registered on
                 (Language of the case: French)                                 4 June 1996 ) and refusing to award him the
                                                                                installation allowance provided for in Article 5 of
                                                                                Annex VII to the Staff Regulations,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                           — order the defendant to bear the costs .
Instance of the European Communities on 27 December
1996 by Immacolata Manzo, residing in Brussels,
represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Christian Kremer, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                            The applicant states that when he was re-posted to
                                                                            Brussels on his return from the Commission Delegation to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Kiev the Commission's administration refused to grant
                                                                            him an installation allowance . He contests that decision
                                                                            and alleges infringement of Article 71 of the Staff
— annul the express decision of 25 September 1996                           Regulations and of Article 5 of Annex VII to those
     rejecting the applicant's complaint, submitted to the                  regulations, as well as infringement of Article 110 of the
     appointing authority on 17 June 1996 , challenging                     Staff Regulations and abuse of power.