CELEX: C1999/086/41
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-27 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 24 December 1998 by Lea Tessaro-Treibenreif against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-210/98)

27.3.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 86/21
Ð the Commission has erroneously disregarded the                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     applicants' immunity from fines in respect of the
     alleged restrictions on the availability and contents of
     service contracts;                                              In this application, the applicant, an official in Grade A 4,
                                                                     step 8, assigned to DG C2 of the Secretariat General of
                                                                     the Council, is seeking compensation for the loss suffered
Ð the Commission has failed to apply a rational and                  as a result of the numerous erros committed by the
     coherent methodology to its calculation of the fines,           defendant which left her without a post for a long period
     contrary to fundamental principles of Community law;            in her career and committed errors and faults in drawing
                                                                     up her Staff Report for the period 1993 to 1995.
Ð the Commission's assessment of the gravity and
     duration of the alleged infringements is flawed;
                                                                     According to the applicant, the defendant discriminated
                                                                     against her with regard to colleagues who were in
Ð the Commission has failed to take into account the                 situations identical to, or even less favourable than, her
     individual positions of each applicant and various              own (and were promoted), thus adversely affecting the
     mitigating factors.                                             proper progress of her career and, in particular, the
                                                                     promotion she was entitled to expect by virtue both of her
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 of 22 December 1986          ability and her length of service. The defendant also
    laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85    disregarded the principles governing the Council Decision
    and 86 of the Treaty to maritime transport (OJ L 378,            of 18 October 1981 laying down the general provisions
    31.12.1986, p. 4).                                               for implementation of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations
                                                                     of Officials concerning Staff Reports.
                                                                     The harm suffered by the applicant results both from the
                                                                     absence of her 1993 to 1995 Staff Report at the time of
                                                                     the 1996 promotion procedure, and from the adverse
Action brought on 17 December 1998 by Gisela                         effect on her career progress, in particular the fact that she
    Stodtmeister against Council of the European Union               was not promoted.
                        (Case T-200/98)
                         (1999/C 86/40)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Action brought on 24 December 1998 by Lea
An action against the Council of the European Union was              Tessaro-Treibenreif against the Commission of the
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                              European Communities
Communities on 17 December 1998 by Gisela
Stodtmeister, residing in Tervuren (Belgium), represented                                   (Case T-210/98)
by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels
                                                                                             (1999/C 86/41)
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Offices of the Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
Cessange.
                                                                                    (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
Ð award her compensation for her loss, in the sum of                 Instance of the European Communities on 24 December
     BEF 500 000, resulting from the absence of her Staff            1998 by Lea Tessaro-Treibenreif, residing in Luxembourg,
     Report for the period 1993 to 1995, on the occasion             represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the Luxembourg Bar,
     of the 1996 promotion procedure;                                with an address for service in Luxembourg at 180 Route
                                                                     de Longwy.
Ð award her a sum, by way of damages, equivalent to
     the difference in her salary between Grade A 3, to
     which she could legitimately have hoped to have been            The applicant claims that the Court should:
     appointed in January 1996, and Grade A 4, step 8,
     which she currently holds, and restoration of her
     career path together with the financial implications            Ð annul the decision of the European Commission
     thereof;                                                            suspending with retroactive effect from 1 January
                                                                         1997 the double dependent child allowance paid to
                                                                         the applicant pursuant to Article 67(3) of the Staff
Ð order the Council to pay all the costs.                                Regulations of Officials until June 1998;
 ---pagebreak--- C 86/22               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               27.3.1999
Ð annul the decision of the European Commission by                    Action brought on 11 January 1999 by Elbe-Stahlwerke
    which it considered that the dependent child                      Feralpi GmbH against the Commission of the European
    allowances paid pursuant of Article 67(3) of the Staff                                    Communities
    Regulations from January 1997 to June 1998,
                                                                                              (Case T-6/99)
    amounting to a global sum of LUF 181 446, were not
    due and payable, and that it was authorised, under                                       (1999/C 86/42)
    Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and on the basis of
    Article 43 of Annex VIII thereto, to recover that sum
    by way of deduction from the retirement pension paid                            (Language of the case: German)
    monthly by the European Commission to the
    applicant;
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
Ð declare unlawful, if not unjustified, the suspension by             Communities was brought before the Court of First
    the Commission on 14 July 1988 of the grant of the                Instance of the European Communities on 11 January
    dependent child allowance to the applicant pursuant               1999 by Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi GmbH, of Riesa,
    to Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations;                        Germany, represented by Wolf Michael Kühne of Sozietät
                                                                      Schürmann & Partner, Frankfurt am Main and Milan,
                                                                      with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Ð declare unlawful and unjustified the application by the
                                                                      Chambers      of    Schaeffer   Hangel     Dennewald     &
    Commission of the rule provided for in Article 85 of
                                                                      Hellenbrand, 12, Avenue de la Porte-Neuve, Luxembourg.
    the Staff Regulations concerning recovery of undue
    payments;
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð order the European Commission to repay to the
    applicant the sums deducted from her retirement
    pension from July 1998 onwards, up to the total sum               1. order the Commission pursuant to Article 23 of the
    of LUF 181 446;                                                       ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice to produce
                                                                          various records (papers, minutes etc.) documenting the
Ð order the European Commission to pay the costs.                         circumstances in which the contested decision was
                                                                          adopted;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      2. authorise the applicant to inspect the documents
The applicant, a retired official, is the mother of a son                 produced;
who suffers from a serious illness. Since 30 June 1993 she
has been in receipt of a double dependent child allowance
pursuant to Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations, since
                                                                      3. declare the Commission's decision of 11 November
her son lives with his parents. Upon verifying the request
                                                                          1998 on German aid to ESF Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi
for extension of that allowance, the Commission found
                                                                          GmbH, Riesa, Sachsen, to be null and void;
that the applicant's son had been married since 1991; it
therefore adopted the contested decisions.
                                                                      4. order the Commission to pay the costs of the
In support of her application, the applicant pleads                       proceedings.
infringement of:
Ð Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations, in that a                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    decision taken under that Article must be duly
    supported by a statement of reasons;
                                                                      The contested decision declared the investment aid of
Ð the general principle that an administrative decision               DEM 8 173 million, the additional investment of
    must contain a statement of the reasons on which it is            DEM 1 236 million and the loan containing an aid
    based;                                                            element of DEM 12 million granted in 1995 by Germany
                                                                      to the applicant, a steel company, to be incompatible with
                                                                      Decision No 2496/96/ECSC and with the common market
Ð the principle that an administrative decision may not               for coal and steel. It further found that the aid element
    have retroactive effect, save in exceptional                      contained in the loan awarded at the end of 1994 was not
    circumstances duly justified by a statement of reasons;           authorised for working capital advances of DEM 7,2
    and                                                               million and DEM 4,8 million and was therefore also
                                                                      incompatible with the decision cited above and the
Ð Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, in that the                    common market.
    provisions of that Article have been applied without
    its having been shown that the conditions governing
    its applicability are fulfilled in the present case.              The applicant pleads infringement of the Treaty or of rules
                                                                      of law relating to its application, and misuse of powers
                                                                      pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty.