CELEX: C2004/007/73
Language: en
Date: 2004-01-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-358/03: Action brought on 17 October 2003 by Siegfried Krahl against the Commission of the European Communities

10.1.2004             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 7/39
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, an official of the European Parliament, obtained           Following the entry into force on 1 January 2001 of the new
a court decision on 6 August 1999 to the effect that her                  financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the
daughter should reside mainly with her. The applicant and her             European Communities (1), the Parliament commenced a pro-
husband, also an official, were divorced by decree of 31 Octo-            cedure for amendment of the rules concerning budgetary
ber 2001, which became final on 12 January 2002. The                      heading 3701, the credits of which are intended to cover
Parliament decided to pay the applicant only half the travel              administrative and operational expenses of the political groups
expenses for her daughter, and to do so as from 2002, the                 and of the secretariat for non-attached Members. On 2 July
year in which the divorce took place.                                     2003 the Bureau of the Parliament decided to adopt the revised
                                                                          version of the latter rules, subject to amendment of the
                                                                          Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and other changes which
                                                                          might prove necessary following further consultations.
By this application the applicant contests that decision, on the
basis of Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. The
applicant submits that, in view of the decision granting her
primary custody of her daughter, the latter should be regarded            In support of their application for annulment of the decision
as being her dependent child and therefore that the travel                adopting the new rules, the applicant invoke first the alleged
expenses should be paid to her at the full rate.                          failure to comply with formal requirements laid down for the
                                                                          adoption of such rules. They contend that the new rules were
                                                                          notified to them in the form of a proposal which did not
                                                                          purport to be the final version of an official document. They
                                                                          also submit that the contested measure was adopted without
                                                                          the budgetary control committee, from which an opinion had
                                                                          been sought, having issued its report and that therefore an
                                                                          essential procedural requirement had been disregarded. In
                                                                          addition to matters of form, the applicants also claim that
                                                                          the new rules infringe the principle of equal treatment by
Action brought on 23 October 2003 by Bruno Gollnisch                      prohibiting new categories of expenses or employment of staff
        and Others against the European Parliament                        under budgetary heading 3701 only as far as non-attached
                                                                          Members are concerned.
                        (Case T-357/03)
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June
                                                                              2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget
                         (2004/C 7/72)                                        of the European Communities (OJ L 248 of 16.9.2002, p. 1).
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 23 October 2003 against the                   Action brought on 17 October 2003 by Siegfried Krahl
European Parliament by Bruno Gollnisch, of Limonest (France),               against the Commission of the European Communities
Marie-France Stirbois, of Villeneuve-Loubey (France), Carl
Lang, of Boulogne-Billancourt (France), Jean-Claude Martinez,
of Montpellier (France), Philip Claeys, of Overijse (Belgium)                                     (Case T-358/03)
and Koen Dillon, of Antwerp (Belgium), represented by
Wallerand de Saint Just, lawyer.
                                                                                                    (2004/C 7/73)
The applicants claim that Court of First Instance should:                                    (Language of the case: French)
—     annul the decision of the Bureau of the European
      Parliament of 2 July 2003 and more particularly the
      provisions thereof adopting a proposal by Mr Poettering             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      concerning the report of Mr Van Hulten, which amends                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      the rules on the use of budgetary heading 3701;
                                                                          European Communities on 17 October 2003 by Siegfried
                                                                          Krahl, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by Sébastien
—     order the European Parliament to pay the costs and                  Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal,
      lawyer’s fees amounting to EUR 10 000.                              lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/40                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          10.1.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —      annul the contested Commission Decisions specifically to
                                                                                 the extent that they apply interest at a default rate of
—     annul the decision not to reimburse to the applicant his                   8,04 %;
      accommodation expenses of EUR 4 200 per month in
      full;                                                               —      order the Commission to pay its own costs and those
                                                                                 incurred by the applicant.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          By the Decision made on 18 July 2001 the Commission found
                                                                          that the applicant and seven other undertakings had infringed
In support of his application, the applicant submits that the             Article 81 of the EC treaty by participating in a complex of
defendant infringed Articles 5 and 23 of Annex X to the Staff             agreements and concerted practices in the graphite electrodes
Regulations, in so far as it may not refuse to reimburse                  sector. The same Decision imposed a fine on the applicant and
his accommodation expenses when it did not provide any                    required that it be paid within 3 months of notification with
accommodation and offered no alternative.                                 interest of 8,04 % payable if the fine was not paid by the stated
                                                                          date. This Decision was notified to the applicant under cover
                                                                          of a letter dated 23 July 2003 which also indicated that if the
                                                                          applicant brought proceedings before the Court of First
                                                                          Instance against the imposition of the fine, no enforcement
                                                                          proceedings would be taken as long as the case was pending
                                                                          before the court, on condition that the applicant paid interest
                                                                          on the amount of the fine at a rate of 6,04 % and provided a
                                                                          bank guarantee for the amount of the fine. The applicant
Action brought on 27 October 2003 by GRAFTECH                             made representations to the Commission proposing different
INTERNATIONAL LTD. against the Commission of the                          payment terms, which were rejected by a letter of the
                   European Communities                                   Commission dated 9 August 2001. The applicant also intro-
                                                                          duced proceedings against the Decision of 18 July 2001
                                                                          imposing the fine (1). Further proposals by the applicant on
                        (Case T-359/03)                                   payment facilities were rejected by the Commission by letters
                                                                          dated 18 August 2003, 11 September 2003 and 18 September
                         (2004/C 7/74)                                    2003.
                  (Language of the case: English)                         By the present action the applicant attacks all the Decisions
                                                                          concerning payment terms. It submits that it is an error of law,
                                                                          on the part of the Commission, to consider that no security
                                                                          other than a bank guarantee could be accepted by the
                                                                          Commission. It also submits that the Decision of 18 August
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 2003 infringes the principle of proportionality by failing to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                achieve a fair balance between the interest of the parties and
European Communities on 27 October 2003 by GRAFTECH                       in particular the applicant’s interest in granting a lien over its
INTERNATIONAL LTD., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, rep-                       unencumbered assets instead of the bank guarantee requested
resented by K.P.E. Lasok QC and Brian Hartnett, Barristers with           by the Commission . The applicant also invokes alleged
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                     manifest errors of fact relating to the Commission’s finding
                                                                          that the applicant has not shown that it cannot comply with
                                                                          the Commission’s Decision and the Commission’s assessment
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               of its financial position and the value of the lien it had offered.
                                                                          The applicant further submits that the Commission’s Decisions
—     annul the contested Commission Decisions dated 18 July              on the applicable interest rates are manifestly erroneous
      2001, 23 July 2001, 9 August 2001, 18 August 2003,                  and that the Commission has breached essential procedural
      11 September 2003 and 18 September 2003 requiring                   requirements in that it failed to afford the applicant an
      GTI to perform its obligations under the Decision of                opportunity to be heard before adopting a decision to enforce
      18 July 2001 or post a bank guarantee or face imminent              its first Decision of 18 July 2001.
      enforcement of the Decision of 18 July 2001 as of
      September 2003;
                                                                          (1) Case T-246/01 notified in OJ C 17, 19.01.2002, p. 16.
—     annul the contested Commission Decisions specifically to
      the extent that they apply interest at a rate of 6,04 %
      when current market interest rates are significantly lower;