CELEX: C1996/233/32
Language: en
Date: 1996-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 7 June 1996 by Gisèle Lienard against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-88/96)

No C 233 / 18          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10 . 8 . 96
 On 22 April 1996 the Director decided, on the basis of a               by Dr Gerrit Schohe and Dr Philipp von Dietze,
 communication from Eurostat, to extend the applicant's                 Rechtsanwàlte, Hamburg, with an address for service in
 secondment to Eurostat until 31 May 1 996 . The applicant's            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden , 34b Rue
 application of 8 May 1996 for a prolongation of that                   Philippe II .
 extension until 30 September 1996 was refused by the
 Director, by letter of 21 May 1996 from Cedefop's head of             The applicants claim that the Court should :
 administration .
                                                                       — annul decision K(96 ) 841 final of the Commission of
 The applicant maintains that the contested decisions are                   13 March 1996 on special depreciation allowances for
 illegal , on the grounds set out below.                                    aircraft pursuant to paragraph 82 f of the German
                                                                            Einkommensteuerdurchfuhrungsverordnung ( income
 In particular :                                                            tax implementation regulation ), inasmuch as that
                                                                            decision concerns the extension of the validity of that
— the decisions were adopted in breach of essential
                                                                            provision from 1 January 1995 to 31 December
     procedural requirements . No adequate statement of
                                                                            1999 ,
     reasons for their adoption was provided,
— the contested decisions are illegal from a substantive               — order the Commission to pay the costs .
     standpoint, since they breach the general principles of
      Community law applicable to the public service . The             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     applicant complains in particular of the following
      breaches :                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                       in     Case T-25/96         Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher
     — breach of the agreements concluded between                      Luftfahrt-Unternehmen and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft
           Cedefop and the applicant and of the guarantees             mbH v . Commission .
           given by the former to the latter, and , consequently,
           infringement of his rights,
     — breach of the principle that the administration's acts
           are binding on itself, and of the principle of the
          protection of legitimate expectations, since                Action brought on 7 June 1996 by Gisèle Lienard against
           Cedefop's decisions contravened the guidelines laid                the Commission of the European Communities
          down with regard to its future conduct, and                                        ( Case T-88/96 )
                                                                                               ( 96/C 233 /32 )
     — breach of the general duty of an employer to have
          regard for the welfare and interests of his employees,
          since the decisions failed to take account of the                           (Language of tbe case: Frencb)
          applicant's legitimate interests,
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
     — breach of the principle of equality of treatment,              Communities was brought before the Court of First
          since , unlike those persons who are remaining in           Instance of the European Communities on 7 June 1996 by
          Berlin, the applicant has not been given credit for his     Gisèle Lienard, residing at Woluwé-Saint-Etienne
          years of service .                                           ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry
                                                                      Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an
For the same reasons, the decision to transfer the applicant's        address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
place of employment with Cedefop to Thessaloniki from                 Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener .
3 June 1996 was illegal .
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      — annul the Commission's decision of 30 October 1995
                                                                           terminating with effect from 1 November 1995 the
                                                                           arrangement whereby the applicant was granted the
Action brought on 31 May 1996 by Arbeitsgemeinschaft
                                                                           additional tax abatement for dependent children .
deutscher Luftfahrt-Unternehmen und Hapag-Lloyd
Fluggesellschaft mbH against the Commission of the                    — order the Commission to pay the costs .
                      European Communities
                          ( Case T-86/96 )                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                            ( 96/C 233/31 )
                                                                      The applicant, who is the ex-wife of a Commission official ,
                                                                      contests the Commission's decision granting her former
                 (Language of the case: German)                       husband the additional tax abatement provided for under
                                                                      the second subparagraph of Article 3 ( 4 ) of Council
An action against the Commission of the European                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 260/68 of 29 February 1968 laying
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     down the conditions and procedure for applying the tax for
Instance of the European Communities on 31 May 1996 by                the benefit of the European Communities .
the Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher Luftfahrt-Unternehmen,
Bonn, and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH ,                          The applicant points out that on 2 1 November 1 994 she and
Langenhagen ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented              her former husband signed pre-divorce agreements by
 ---pagebreak---    10 . 8 . 96         EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 233/ 19
  mutual consent, whereby she was given custody of the                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
  couple's two children, and responsibility for looking after
  them and managing their assets . In compliance with those
  agreements, the Commission granted her, pursuant to                   — annul in its entirety Commission Decision 96/315/ECSE
                                                                              ('the contested Decision '),
  Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 260/68 , an additional tax
  abatement equivalent to twice the amount of the allowance
  for each dependent child . Upholding a complaint submitted            — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action
  by the applicant's ex-husband , the Commission                             including those of the applicant .
  subsequently decided that he alone was to be given the tax
  abatement in dispute .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  In contesting that decision, the applicant argues, first, that it
  infringed Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 260/68 , in so far
  as that provision grants a tax abatement ' for each dependent         The applicant is public limited company incorporated in
  child of the person liable'. The applicant explains that, in          England and engaged in the steel industry . It regularly
  accordance with the intention of both parties and as a                distributes within the territory of the Community iron and
  matter of fact, she had been entrusted with sole                      steel products of the kind defined in Annex I to the ECSC
 responsibility for custody of the couple's children, and for          Treaty.
  looking after them and managing their assets, and that
 determination of the maintenance payment — confirmed by               The applicant challenges a Decision which is addressed to
 the national court primarily on the basis of the parties'             Ireland , and in which the Commission declares compatible
 respective salary slips — takes account of the fiscal                 with the common market the grant of £ Irl 38,298 million by
 implications of that decision .                                       way of aid to Irish Steel .
 According to the applicant, the contested decision is also
 vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, in that, having           According to the applicant the contested Decision :
 regard to the financial responsibilities which she in practice
 shoulders, the maintenance payment to which her                       — purports to authorize the grant of State aid to an
 ex-husband has voluntarily agreed amounts to                               individual undertaking, notwithstanding the terms of
 approximately 25 % of the actual expenses incurred for the                 Commission Decision 3855/91 /ECSC . The ' Fifth SAC '
 maintenance and education of the children . Thus it is clear               declared that such aid would be regarded as prohibited .
 that, by comparison with the applicant's contribution to the               If the Commission decides that different measures are
 payment of expenses, her ex-husband's share cannot be                      ' necessary' for the attainment of the objectives of the
 regarded as amounting to 'heavy financial responsibilities'.               Community, it should amend or replace the ' Fifth SAC '
 Also, since the Commission pays the family allowances                      and not take individual decisions . As the ' Fifth SAC ' was
 directly to the applicant, and this does not affect her                    binding and comprehensive until such time as it was
 ex-husband's income, those allowances should not be taken                  amended , it was not open to the Commission to
 into      account  in   order     to  establish   his   financial          circumvent it by adopting individual decisions on the
 responsibilities .                                                         same subject-matter under Article 95 . The contested
                                                                            Decision should therefore be annulled on the ground of
 Lastly, the applicant alleges that the Commission has                      lack of competence .
 infringed the duty to state reasons .
                                                                       — contains infringements of the ECSC Treaty and of rules
                                                                            of law relating to its application . In particular :
                                                                           — the grant of the present State aid will lead to a
                                                                                  distortion of competition, because, contrary to the
                                                                                  established case-law of the Court and Commission
Action brought on 11 June 1996 by British Steel pLC                               practice, not only has this aid been authorized
   against the Commission of the European Communities                             without requiring any reduction in capacity, but Irish
                         ( Case T-89/96 )                                         Steel is still permitted to increase its capacity and its
                           ( 96/C 233/33 )                                        production ,
                                                                           — in adopting the contested Decision the Commission
                 (Language of tbe case: English)                                  took into account considerations irrelevant to the
                                                                                  test laid down in Article 95 , namely whether the
An action against the Commission of the European                                  grant of aid is 'necessary to attain . . . one of the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                 objectives of the Community set out in Articles 2 , 3
Instance of the European Communities on 11 June 1996 by                           and 4 '. In any event, the grant of the aid in question is
British Steel pLC, represented by Mr William Sibree and Mr                        not necessary within the meaning of Article 95 to
Philip Raven, Solicitors of the Supreme Court, Slaughter and                      attain one of the objectives of the ECSC Treaty,
May, Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Messrs Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen , 15                     — the contested Decision infringes the principle of
Côte d'Eich, Luxembourg.                                                         non-discrimination,