CELEX: C2001/061/41
Language: en
Date: 2001-02-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-385/00: Action brought on 27 December 2000 by Jean-Paul Seiller against the European Investment Bank

C 61/22               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.2.2001
—     order that interest at the annual rate of 8 % or any other         The applicant claims that the Court should:
      appropriate rate to be determined by the Court be paid
      on the amount payable as from the date of judgment;                —     rule that the European Investment Bank is required to
                                                                               reimburse to Mr Seiller the sum of LUF 4 779 652 in
—     order the European Community, as represented here                        respect of his pension rights;
      by the Council of the European Union, the European
      Parliament and the Commission of the European Com-
      munities, to bear the costs of the proceedings.                    —     rule that that sum is to bear compound interest from
                                                                               1 May 1993 at the annual rate fixed by the President of
                                                                               the European Investment Bank;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     order the European Investment Bank to pay all the costs.
The applicant in the present case is a small well-established
firm in the business of high quality printing on folding carton
packaging for products such as cosmetics and fragances. The              Pleas in law and main arguments
market in question is to a great extent focused on the United
States both in terms of logistics and market share.
                                                                         The applicant in the present case, having worked for the EIB,
                                                                         submitted his resignation in April 1993, requesting that he
The applicant states that, as a result of the retaliatory measures       should not have to work his notice period. Thereafter, the
taken by the United States, and allowed by The Dispute                   defendant and the applicant signed an agreement by which the
Settlement Body, because of the adoption by the European                 EIB was to pay to Mr Seiller a certain sum ‘in full and final
Community of a scheme for importation of bananas that is to              settlement, on a lump-sum basis, of all accounts due and in
be considered as contrary to the GATT and GATS, the United               satisfaction of all rights and claims, whether contractual or
States market has been entirely closed off, so that heavy                extra-contractual, which you have or may have against the
investments in capital adapted specifically to the needs of this         Bank or any other Community body as at today’s date’.
market have been rendered worthless. As a question of fact,
the sanctions in question have been applied to the applicant’s
products now for over 18 months, taking the form of 100 %                The applicant maintains that the consent expressed by him in
ad valorem duties.                                                       that agreement is vitiated by the fact that, at the time when it
                                                                         was signed, he did not have available to him all the information
                                                                         necessary in order for him to be fully apprised. Thus, the sum
The applicant submits that the Community’s maintenance in                paid to him did not include the amount corresponding to the
place of an unlawful banana regime has caused it serious                 reimbursement of his pension rights.
damage which the Community has a duty to make good under
Article 288(2) C. In support of this claim the applicant submits
that the damage being caused to it is the direct result of the           The applicant therefore seeks to challenge the sum expressed
Community’s unlawful failure to comply with its international            to be in full and final settlement under the agreement signed
obligations.                                                             in April 1993.
Action brought on 27 December 2000 by Jean-Paul Seiller
            against the European Investment Bank                         Action brought on 28 December 2000 by Margarida
                                                                                  Gonçalves against the European Parliament
                        (Case T-385/00)
                                                                                                 (Case T-386/00)
                         (2001/C 61/41)
                                                                                                  (2001/C 61/42)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities           An action against the European Parliament was brought before
on 27 December 2000 by Jean-Paul Seiller, resident in                    the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Luxembourg, represented by Dominique Chouanier, of the                   28 December 2000 by Margarida Gonçalves, residing in
Paris Bar, and Lex Thielen, of the Luxembourg Bar.                       Brussels, represented by Louis Tinti, of the Luxembourg Bar.