CELEX: C2000/079/71
Language: en
Date: 2000-03-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-344/99: Action brought on 1 December 1999 by Lucía Recalde Langarica against Commission of the European Communities

18.3.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 79/33
— award damages provisionally estimated, on an equitable                 Action brought on 1 December 1999 by Lucı́a Recalde
     basis, as amounting to LFR 600 000;                                 Langarica against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                                         ties
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                                  (Case T-344/99)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                   (2000/C 79/71)
In June 1996 the appointing authority notified the applicant
of its decision to open disciplinary proceedings against him on
account of alleged tampering with the computer program                                      (Language of the case: Spanish)
relating to the remuneration of officials. The Disciplinary
Board delivered its reasoned opinion in July 1997, in which it
proposed imposition of the disciplinary measure of a written             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
warning. Ultimately, in the context of the discussion provided           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
for in the third paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff         European Communities on 1 December 1999 by Lucı́a
Regulations, the appointing authority expressed its wish to              Recalde Langarica, residing in Brussels, represented by Ramon
make further inquiries. In March 1998 the applicant’s advisers           Garcı́a-Gallardo and Gerard Pérez Olmo, of the Madrid and
were informed that the appointing authority had decided to               Barcelona Bars respectively, of S.J. Berwin & Co, 19 Square de
refer the matter once again to the Disciplinary Board. The               Meeûs, Brussels.
applicant was subsequently informed that his personal file was
being examined by DG IX.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Against that background, the applicant, in bringing the present
action, contests in particular the rejection by the appointing           — annul the measure adopted by the Commission by means
authority of his application for the closure of the disciplinary              of its letter of 26 February 1999, and subsequently
proceedings brought against him.                                              implemented by means of acts communicated by letter
                                                                              of 5 May 1999, whereby the applicant’s entitlement to
                                                                              expatriation allowance was retrospectively withdrawn.
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay the costs.
— infringement of the third paragraph of Article 7 of
     Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, failure to comply with
     the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
     officials and failure to comply with the principles of good         Pleas in law and main arguments
     management and sound administration. He maintains in
     that regard that the appointing authority has known since
     September 1997 that he did not wish to add anything to              The applicant in the present case contests the appointing
     the statements made in the context of the investigation of          authority’s refusal to recognise her claim to expatriation
     the file in issue. Moreover, whilst the appointing authority        allowance as from her entry into the service of the Com-
     is not bound by strict or mandatory time-limits for the             mission. She observes in that regard that the refusal was
     purposes of adopting the decision referred to in the third          adopted retroactively, after the defendant administration itself
     paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations,        had, in mid-1996, provisionally granted her the aforemen-
     such a decision must nevertheless be taken within a                 tioned allowance. Following that provisional allocation, the
     reasonable time;                                                    applicant did not receive any notification whatsoever that her
                                                                         file was under review, which, together with the fact that she
— infringement of the rights of the defence, of Article 87 of            continued to receive the allowance in question, led her to
     the Staff Regulations and of Articles 1, 7 and 11 of                believe her situation with the Commission to be definitive.
     Annex IX to the Staff Regulations. In that regard, he
     maintains, inter alia, that disciplinary proceedings, as
     organised by the Staff Regulations, do not authorise the            The applicant categorically denies having worked and pursued
     appointing authority, in the context of one and the same            a professional activity in Belgium during the five years
     set of proceedings, to proceed to make further inquiries            preceding the six months prior to her entering the Community
     after the Disciplinary Board has delivered its reasoned             civil service. In support of her arguments, she claims that:
     opinion. Moreover, the hearing referred to in the third
     paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations         — her fundamental rights of defence were infringed with
     cannot be used by the appointing authority in order to                   regard to the obligation to state reasons for the adoption
     pursue an inquiry. By the same token, the Disciplinary                   of Community administrative acts;
     Board’s opinion of 25 November 1999 stated in clear
     terms that no new facts existed which might warrant the
                                                                         — the principle of legitimate expectations was infringed;
     matter being referred a second time to that Board.
                                                                         — the contested decision was unlawfully implemented with
                                                                              retroactive effect;
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/34                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.3.2000
— there exists a parallel file with regard to the present case;               Commission. Moreover, it is not manifestly evident that
                                                                              the application of that measure gives rise to a distortion of
— her rights under the Staff Regulations (Article 4 of                        competition which would affect intra-Community trade.
    Annex VII to the Staff Regulations) were infringed so far
    as concerns the substance of her case.                               — the Commission misinterpreted the concept of ‘nature or
                                                                              scheme of the system’, which the defendant institution
                                                                              itself (uses) in its Communication on tax aid. In that
                                                                              connection, the applicant considers the provincial legis-
                                                                              lation at issue is supported by a long historical tradition,
                                                                              both at provincial and national level, and lays down
                                                                              objective criteria of general application, which do not
                                                                              discriminate between classes of economic operators to the
Action brought on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio                           detriment of some of them and which are necessary in
Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación                      order to achieve the objective pursued, as well as to ensure
Foral de Alava against the Commission of the European                         the proper and efficient operation of the system of which
                           Communities                                        it forms part.
                                                                         — it is impossible for the Spanish authorities to have infringed
                         (Case T-346/99)
                                                                              the obligation to notify laid down in Article 88(3) of the
                                                                              EC Treaty, since they have always been certain that the
                          (2000/C 79/72)                                      reduction of the basis of assessment in question in no way
                                                                              constitutes State aid. The applicant would go so far as to
                                                                              describe as absurd the requirement that measures be
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                            notified where there are not even any doubts as to their
                                                                              general nature.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               — the Commission misused its powers in so far as it takes
European Communities on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio                     the view that the Commission used its power to engage
Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación                      procedures under Articles 87 and 88 in order to pursue
Foral de Alava, Alava (Spain) represented by Antonio Creus                    objectives relating to tax harmonisation.
Carreras and Begoña Uriarte Valiente, of the Barcelona and
Madrid Bars respectively, with an address for service in Brussels        Finally, the applicant alleges infringement of the obligation to
at the Chambers of Cuatrecasas Abogados, 60 Avenue de                    state reasons for measures.
Cortenbergh.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission’s decision of 14 July 1999 in so far
    as it regards the reduction of the corporation tax applicable
    to newly created undertakings, provided for in Article 6 of
    Provincial Law of Alava No 24/1996, as State aid within              Action brought on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio
    the meaning of Article 87 EC;                                        Histórico de Gipuzkoa, Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia —
                                                                         Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa against the Commission of
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                    the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   (Case T-347/99)
The applicant contests the characterisation as State aid of the                                    (2000/C 79/73)
reduction of the basis of assessment for corporation tax,
provided for in Article 26 of Provincial Law of Alava
No 24/1996 for newly created undertakings which invest a                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
minimum of PTA 80 million, create 10 new jobs and have a
minimum paid-up capital of PTA 20 million.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
In support of its arguments, the applicant claims that:                  European Communities on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio
                                                                         Histórico de Gipuzkoa, Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia — Diputa-
— the Commission misinterpreted Article 87 of the EC                     ción Foral de Gipuzkoa, Gipuzkoa (Spain) represented by
    Treaty, inasmuch as it regarded the reduction of the basis           Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña Uriarte Valiente, of the
    for assessment for newly created undertakings as State aid.          Barcelona and Madrid Bars respectively, with an address for
    The tax measure in question is of general application                service in Brussels at the Chambers of Cuatrecasas Abogados,
    and lacks the selective nature attributed to it by the               60 Avenue de Cortenbergh.