CELEX: C1996/318/32
Language: en
Date: 1996-10-26 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 14 August 1996 by Giorgio Lebedef against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-128/96)

26 . 10 . 96          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 318/ 17
Action brought on 14 August 1996 by Giorgio Lebedef                  which cannot supersede the Staff Regulations or the general
  against the Commission of the European Communities                 principles governing the right of association, one of the
                       ( Case T-128/ 96 )                            fundamental expressions of which is the free circulation of
                                                                     information and dissemination of written material .
                         ( 96/C 318/32 )
                                                                     It is also alleged that the Commission acted contrary to the
                (Language of the case: French)                       principle of the equal treatment of trade unions .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 14 August 1996
by Giorgio Lebedef, residing at Senningerberg
( Luxembourg ), represented by Gilles Bounéou, of the
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Action brought on 15 August 1996 by Preussag Stahl AG
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 15 avenue du
Bois .
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                             ( Case T-129/96 )
                                                                                               ( 96/C 318/33 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the Commission 's decision of 26 October                                     (Language of the case: German)
     1995 ,
— annul in consequence the decision of 10 May 1996 ,                 An action against the Commission of the European
     which was notified on 14 May 1996 ,                             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 15 August 1996
— order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of               by Preussag Stahl AG, Salzgitter ( Federal Republic of
     Bfrs 200 000 by way of compensation, that being the             Germany ),        represented     by      Jochim    Sedemund ,
     amount which, in the applicant's estimation, is                 Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in
     equivalent to the damage suffered, or any other amount          Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand '
                                                                     rue .
     to be decided by the Court,
— order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
     incurred in the proceedings .
                                                                     — annul the Commission 's decision of 29 Mai 1996
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                        concerning State aid to the Walzwerk Ilsenburg GmbH
                                                                           ( COM(96 ) 1642 final ),
The applicant, who is Secretary-General of the independent
trade union Action et Defense — Luxembourg ( A&D—L ),                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
challenges the Commission's refusal to allow the
distribution by its internal mail service of a leaflet common
to the four trade unions, the FFPE, the FPE, the SFIE and the         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
A&D—L. That refusal is based on Article 21 of the
 framework agreement, under which only the signatory                 The action concerns aid which was granted in 1994 to
 organizations may use the Commission 's distribution                 Walzwerk Ilsenburg GmbH, which was at that time a legally
 systems . The A&D—L is not a party to that agreement.                independent subsidiary of the applicant company, Preussag
                                                                      Stahl AG. In 1995 it merged with its parent company. The
 The applicant alleges first that the Commission infringed the        applicant company is therefore the successor in title of the
 European civil servants' right of association, which is              undertaking which received aid .
 recognized by Article 24a of the Staff Regulations . On that
 point the applicant specifies that the very concept of               According to the applicant company, it was clear from the
 freedom of association entails, not only the right of officials      outset that the aid for the Grobblechstraße plant of
 or other servants freely to establish associations of their          Walzwerk Ilsenburg GmbH constituted 'regional
 choosing, but also the right of such associations to take part       investment aid' for the purposes of Article 5 of the fifth Steel
 in all legitime activities in defense of the professional            Aid Code, provision for which was made by general rules
 interests of their members . Consequently, the Community             approved by the Commission on 16 November 1994 and
 institutions should accept that trade unions and staff               that the aid benefited an undertaking operating in the
 associations must fulfil the role entrusted to them ,                territory of the former German Democratic Republic . It is
 particularly by acting to keep officials and other servants          also indisputable that the requirement of a ' reduction in the
 informed on all subjects of interest to staff.                       overall production capacity of that territory', within the
                                                                      meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 5 of the Code,
 In that connection the applicant adds that the agreement             had been satisfied, a fact of which the Commission was
 mentioned above constitutes an internal administrative act           already aware in December 1994 .