CELEX: C1996/108/26
Language: en
Date: 1996-04-13 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 7 February 1996 by Stephen Pascall against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-20/96)

No C 108/12             EN I                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13 . 4 . 96
decision, the Commission holds that the aid is limited to the           Instance of the European Communities on 7 February 1996
interest-free element . The applicant, on the other hand,               by Stephen Pascall , residing in Brussels, represented by
considers that the aid is represented not only by the grant of          Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of
the loan on an interest-free basis but also by the full amount          the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
of the loan .                                                           at the Chambers of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue
                                                                        Glesener .
Pleas in support of the applicant's action for annulment:
1 . The Commission Decision , in that it holds that only the            The applicant claims that the Court should :
     interest-free element and not the loan itself amounts to
     State aid, constitutes an incorrect application of                 — annul the Commission's decision of 26 June 1995
     Article 92 of the EC Treaty. It would seem that when                    withdrawing its decision of 18 October 1994 awarding
     applying the market economy investor principle, the                     the applicant an additional step ;
     Commission is of the opinion that the application of the
     principle leads to different results according to whether
     the State aid takes the form of a capital injection or a           — order the defendant to pay the costs .
     loan . This constitutes a misinterpretation of Article 92
     ( 1 ) of the Treaty .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2 . In failing to characterize the full amount of the loan as
     aid, the Commission has committed manifest errors of               The applicant states that he entered the employment of the
     assessment :                                                       Commission as a temporary agent in the scientific service on
                                                                        1 December 1986 . Following his success in an internal
     — the Belgian authorities have confirmed that the                  competition, he was appointed an official at Grade A 4,
           'loan ' was granted on an interest-free basis . This         step 4, on 6 May 1994 , with effect from 1 April 1994, and
           element in itself should have led the Commission to          was assigned to the post he had held as a temporary agent.
           conclude that the so-called loan was in fact akin to a       By decision of 18 October 1994, he was awarded an
           subsidy or at the very least was certainly not a             additional step pursuant to Article 97 ( 1 ) of the Staff
           normal loan transaction,                                     Regulations of officials of the European Communities . On
                                                                        26 June 1995 , the appointing authority decided to withdraw
     — the unusual or exceptional nature of the loan is                 that decision on the ground that, since 1 April 1994, the
           further confirmed by the fact that, on the one hand,         applicant no longer belonged to the scientific or technical
           the loan was granted on a totally unsecured basis            services of the Community .
           and, on the other hand , the aid was granted on a
           purely ad hoc basis and not pursuant to the
           legislation applicable to aids in the Flemish                In support of his action, the applicant pleads, first, breach of
           Region,
                                                                        the requirement to state reasons, claiming that the contested
                                                                        decision does not provide sufficient information to allow
                                                                        him to ascertain whether it was well founded and whether it
     — the Commission manifestly misjudged VLM's
           financial situation which, contrary to what the              was appropriate to bring an action before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance .
           Commission states in its decision, underwent further
           substantial deterioration in the course of 1994 .
                                                                        He also alleges breach of the principle of legal certainty and
3 . By failing to take account of the applicant's observations          claims that it is unlawful to withdraw a decision which
     and by failing to give the applicant the opportunity to            conferred individual rights . In that regard, he states that
     comment on the replies furnished by the Belgian                    even if the decision of 1 8 October 1 994 had been improperly
     authorities, the Commission has infringed Article 190 of           adopted , the appointing authority could only withdraw it
     the EC Treaty .                                                    within a reasonable period; in this instance , it was not until
                                                                        more than eight months after the decision was adopted that
                                                                        the appointing authority withdrew it, which is an
                                                                         unacceptable lapse of time .
                                                                         Finally, the applicant considers that the contested decision
  Action brought on 7 February 1996 by Stephen Pascall                   infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate
   against the Commission of the European Communities                    expectations . He claims that when the appointing authority
                           ( Case T-20/96 )                              awarded him the additional step, it must have known that he
                                                                         had already been appointed as an official; it is indisputable,
                             ( 96/C 108/26 )                             therefore , that in adopting that decision the appointing
                                                                         authority raised reasonable expectations on the applicant's
                   (Language of the case: Frencb)                        part .
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First