CELEX: C1997/054/50
Language: en
Date: 1997-02-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 9 December 1996 by Mrs Marta Alvarez-Cotera against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-204/96)

No C 54/30           I EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 2 . 97
order to ensure compliance with the judgment by the                  awarded, subject to Luxembourg law and also provided
French State. The applicants consider that the Commission            for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the
allowed the French State total discretion and complete               European Communities .
freedom to resort to whatever domestic legal provisions
were necessary in order to negate the entire effect of               The applicant claims, first, that there has been an
the provisions of Community law thus adjudicated on,                 infringement of Articles 1134, 1134-1 and 1135 of the
thereby seriously undermining the coherence and                      Luxembourg Civil Code, of the general principles of the
effectiveness of those provisions .                                  law on contracts and of the performance in good faith of
                                                                     contracts . It stresses in that regard that the contract at
The applicants further consider that the aggregated                  issue was awarded by valid, public and unequivocal
damage to be made good by the Commission, whose                      consensus ad idem .
failure to act continues to render it liable, amounts to 25
million French francs, valued as at 1988 , subject to                Secondly, the applicant states that even if it were to be
application of the appropriate weighting to take into                assumed that there was no actual or apparent contract in
account the depreciation of that currency, namely 1,19%              this case, which is denied, there should be a finding of
 ( total sum : ECU 4 562 884 ).                                      tortious liability, first, during the precontractual phase
                                                                     and, secondly, by virtue of infringement of Article 1382 et
H 1988 ECR 4489 .                                                    seq. of the Luxembourg Civil Code and of the Grand­
                                                                     Ducal Regulation of 27 January 1994 implementing in
                                                                     Luxembourg law the EEC directives on public works
                                                                     contracts, public supply contracts and public services
                                                                     contracts . Specifically, there is no doubt that all the
                                                                     information required from tenderers was contained in the
Action brought on 10 December 1996 by Embassy                        applicant's tender in accordance with Article 29 of Title II
    Limousines & Services SA against European Parliament             of the abovementioned Grand-Ducal Regulation. Likewise,
                        ( Case T-203/96 )                            Article 23 of the General Conditions established by that
                                                                     regulation permits a supplier to be excluded from
                           ( 97/C 54/49 )                            participation in the contracting procedure only in the
                 (Language of the case: French)                      exhaustive cases to which it refers, which, according to
                                                                     the applicant, are wholly inapplicable here .
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European                   The applicant concludes that in any event the defendant
Communities on 10 December 1996 by Embassy                           institution conducted itself negligently and even
                                                                     improperly in ignoring and flouting its interests. If the
Limousines & Services SA, whose registered office is at
                                                                     defendant did not intend to perform the contract and/or
Diegem, Belgium, represented by E. Boigelot, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at           considered that no contract had arisen, it is particularly
the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort Rheinsheim .            abusive and injurious to require the applicant to carry out
                                                                     urgent and costly preparation, which was particularly
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          demanding in terms of time, energy and expense, for a
                                                                     contract which it is then decided not to perform or which
— order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant              is alleged to be non-existent.
      the sum of FB 24 267 910, subject to an increase or
      reduction in that amount in the course of the
      proceedings, by way of compensation for the financial,
      commercial and non-material damage which it is
      suffering on account of the wrongful conduct of the
      European Parliament,                                           Action brought on 9 December 1996 by Mrs Marta
                                                                     Alvarez-Cotera against the Commission of the European
                                                                                               Communities
— order the European Parliament to bear all the costs of
      the proceedings.                                                                      ( Case T-204/96 )
                                                                                               ( 97/C 54/50 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                    (Language of the case: English)
The applicant, a service company, which claims to have
been contacted officially by a representative of the                 An action against the Commission of the European
defendant institution for the purpose of informing it of the         Communities was brought before the Court of First
award to it of the contract for which it had tendered                Instance of the European Communities on 9 December
concerning the provision, by external services, of                   1996 by Mrs Marta Alvarez-Cotera , represented by
chauffeur-driven transport on the occasion of meetings in            Gerald van der Wal, Member of the Bar of the Supreme
Brussels, objects to the withdrawal of the invitation to             Court of the Netherlands, of Barents & Krans, Advocaten
tender in question and the initiation of a new award                 Notarissen , Brussels , with an address for service in
procedure .                                                          Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, Luxembourg.
It explains that under the terms of the invitation to tender         The applicant claims that the Court should :
and the framework contract at issue the European
Parliament made the framework contract, and contracts                — declare the decision of 25 September 1996 void,
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 2 . 97              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 54/31
— declare the application of Community tax to the                     2 . There is no legal basis for the imposition of
     applicant, who works for the defendant as a freelance                Community tax on the applicant:
     interpreter, unlawful and/or declare Article 8 of the
     Agreement with A.I.I.C. null and void,                               The provisions in the Agreements with A.I.I.C. under
                                                                          which the income of freelance interpreters is made
                                                                          subject to Community tax are null and void because
— order repayment of the Community tax withheld by                        there is no legal basis which enables the defendant or
     the defendant and/or paid by the applicant since                     any of the other parties to the Agreements to deduct,
     1 January 1989 until the date of the judgment to be                  on the basis of a private agreement, Community tax
     given in this case, together with interest at the rate of            from the remuneration of the applicant.
     8 % or as prescribed by law,
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the
     applicant.
                                                                      Action brought on 12 December 1996 by Roland Bieber
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                 against the European Parliament
                                                                                             ( Case T-205/96 )
The applicant explains that since 1986 she has worked as                                        ( 97/C 54/51 )
a freelance interpreter for the EC institutions . Since 1989
the Commission has deducted Community tax from the                                   (Language of the case: French)
remuneration of freelance interpreters on the basis of
agreements concluded every five years with the A.I.I.C.               An action against the European Parliament was brought
('Association       Internationale     des    Interpretes    de       before the Court of First Instance of the European
Conference '). On 23 April 1996 , the applicant requested             Communities on 12 December 1996 by Roland Bieber,
the defendant to reimburse the Community tax paid by                  residing in Brussels,            represented by Georges
her since 1989 and to declare that her income would, in               Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
the future, no longer be subject to Community tax. The                service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
request was rejected by the Commission by letter of                   Sari, 30 rue de Cessange .
29 May 1996 . An appeal against that decision lodged by
the applicant on 5 July 1996 was rejected by the                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
defendant by letter of 25 September 1996 .
                                                                      — annul the decision of the European Parliament, in its
The applicant submits that the decision contained in the                  capacity as the appointing authority, rejecting the
letter of 25 September 1996 should be annulled on the                     applicant's complaint concerning his request for
following grounds:                                                        compensation for the damage suffered as a result of
                                                                          his belated and unlawful reinstatement following a
                                                                          period of leave on personal grounds,
1.   The contested decision is based on an incorrect and
     unlawful application and          interpretation   of the        — order the European Parliament to pay compensation
     Agreements with A.II.C. :                                            estimated ( subject to subsequent finalization ) to
                                                                          amount to BFR 4 500 000 for the material damage
     — the imposition of Community tax by virtue of the                   suffered by the applicant, together with default interest
          Agreements, and more specifically Article 8                     at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of
          thereof, in the case of the applicant is incorrect.             commencement of the present action,
          The applicant is of Swiss nationality and therefore
          falls outside of the scope of application of the            — order the European Parliament to pay all the costs .
          provisions of the Agreements, under which the sole
          criterion is the nationality of the interpreter in          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
          question,
                                                                      The applicant, an adviser to the Director responsible for
     — the defendant acted unlawfully and contrary to the             political affairs within the Directorate-General for
          provisions and the objectives of the Agreements             Research, contests the detrimental consequences resulting
          ( equality of treatment as regards the fiscal               from what he regards as delay in his reinstatement in the
          situation of all freelance interpreters engaged by          defendant institution following a period of leave on
          the Commission ) by applying the Agreements in              personal grounds .
          such a way that the applicant was obliged to pay
          Community tax on top of the national income tax             The applicant recalls that, by decision of 26 September
          paid in her country of residence, namely                    1991 , the appointing authority authorized him to take
          Switzerland, during the years 1989 to 1993 and              leave on personal grounds from 15 November 1991 until
          can obtain reimbursement of Community tax since             15 July 1992 . That leave was extended, by a series of
          1994 only under the strict conditions laid down in          decisions, until 15 November 1994 . Having heard nothing
          Article 8 ( 3 ) of the Agreement for the period 1994        from the defendant institution, the applicant approached
          to 1998 .                                                   the   Director-General      for  Personnel  and Finance   on