CELEX: C1996/318/34
Language: en
Date: 1996-10-26 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 21 August 1996 by Gaetano Aquilino against the Council of the European Union (Case T-130/96)

No C 318/18            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26 . 10 . 96
The contested decision is based solely on the assertion that         Communities on 21 August 1996 by Gaetano Aquilino,
the period from 25 November 1994 ( date of receipt of                residing at Havre ( Belgium ), represented by Nicolas Lhoest,
notification ) and 31 December 1994 was insufficient for a           of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
substantive examination of the aid granted and that after            Luxemburg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson, 1 rue
31 December 1994 the Commission 'no longer had the                   Glesener .
authority' to determine the compatibility of an aid project
with Article 5 of the Code .
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant considers that the contested decision should
be annulled on the following grounds :                               — annul the Commission 's note of 25 October 1995
— the Commission 's contention that it had insufficient
                                                                         communicating the decision to recover 91 working days
                                                                         from the applicant's salary for unjustified absences
    time to determine the compatibility of the aid in question           between 9 March 1994 and 15 February 1995 ,
    with the common market is incorrect, and is grossly
    discriminatory against the applicant company by
    comparison with other steel undertakings ( EKO-Stahl ).          — order the Council to reimburse the applicant in full in
    It is clear from the actual wording of Article 5 of the              respect of sums deducted from his salary in
    Code that that provision is concerned solely with the                implementation of the Council's decision of 25 October
    substantive aspects of the question whether aid is in                1995 , together with the interest due from the respective
    conformity with the Code . It makes no mention                       dates of deduction,
    whatsoever of time limits within which the Commission
    must take decisions . Rather it provides that the general        — order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings in
    exemption for regional aid in East Germany must cease                their entirety.
    at the end of 1994 . The Code nowhere prohibits the
    Commission from making a finding after 31 December
    1994 as to the substantive compatibility of aid exempted         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    pursuant to Article 5 ,
— the Commission's argument that it could not                        The applicant, an official in grade D 1 , contests the
    retrospectively determine the compatibility of the aid in        appointing authority's decision to deem unauthorized
    question with the common market is invalid,                      certain absences which, in his view, were covered by a
                                                                     medical certificate issued in the prescribed manner, and to
— the Commission abused its discretionary powers by                  recover from his salary the amount corresponding to the
    failing to take into consideration the legal interests of the    period of allegedly unjustified absences .
    applicant company or its legitimate expectations with
    regard to the substantive compatibility of the aid with          The applicant points out that, in the course of his duties, he
    the Code,                                                        was obliged over the years to carry and manhandle a large
                                                                     number of packages, to walk long distances and often to
— the decision infringes Articles 5 and 15 of the ECSC               remain in a standing position . Those forms of activity are
    Treaty . Contrary to the judgments of the Court of               not advisable for people who, like the applicant, suffer from
   Justice in the Boussac and Tubermeuse cases, the                  back problems. That is why on several occasions both the
    Commission has treated a mere alleged non-observance             doctors who treated him and the administration 's medical
    of a time-limit as a ground for demanding repayment of           officer called on the Council to find the applicant a job for
    aid which was substantively compatible with the                  which he was physically suited . No action was taken on
    common market in steel . There is no adequate statement          those suggestions .
    of reasons to explain why the Commission could not still
    determine the compatibility of the aid with Article 5 of
    the Code after 31 December 1994 , if all the necessary           The applicant points out above all that his absences were
    conditions were satisfied before that date .                     always circumstantiated by medical certificates. However,
                                                                     as from March 1994 the Council began to describe them as
                                                                     unjustified , although no medical examination cast doubt on
                                                                     the validity of those certificates, the institution itself did not
                                                                     think it necessary to have the applicant undergo a fresh
                                                                     medical examination and the Invalidity Committee was
                                                                     never convened .
Action brought on 21 August 1996 by Gaetano Aquilino
         against the Council of the European Union
                        ( Case T-130/96 )
                                                                     The applicant argues that the Council infringed Articles 59
                                                                     and 60 of the Staff Regulations, and acted in breach of the
                          ( 96/C 318/34 )                            principle that acts must be accompanied by a statement of
                                                                     reasons and contrary to its duty to have regard for the
                (Language of the case: French)                       welfare of officials .
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European