CELEX: C1999/246/82
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-28 00:00:00
Title: Case: T-149/99: Action brought on 21 June 1999 by Mrs Helga Weber against the Commission of the European Communities

28.8.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 246/41
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           — annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities of 26 March 1999 (Decision C(1999) 760
                                                                              final) by which it rejected the request made by the Kingdom
The applicant contests Commission Decision C (1999) 541 of                    of Belgium, for the benefit of Miller NV, seeking a waiver
4 March 1999, which reduces the contribution made to one                      of post-clearance recovery of import duties in respect of
of its subsidiaries by the Commission under Commission                        television sets imported from Turkey during the period
Decision C (93) 3401 of 26 November 1992 concerning grant                     from 5 June 1991 to 26 February 1992 or the remission
of the EAGGF, Guidance Section, contribution under Council                    of those duties;
Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 (1), in connection with Project
No 92.IT.06.057 entitled ‘Action in the form of a pilot                   — order the Commission to pay the costs.
demonstrative project for the reduction of production costs
and fertiliser costs in sunflower cultivation’.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in
                                                                          — Infringement of the rights of the defence:
Case T-141/99 Vela s.r.l. v Commission.
                                                                              By not allowing Miller NV to inspect the administrative
                                                                              file, the Commission infringed an essential procedural
( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988
     laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No              requirement and failed to respect Miller’s rights of defence.
     2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (OJ L 337 of
     24.12.1994, p. 11).                                                  — Infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79:
                                                                              The Commission wrongly concluded in the contested
                                                                              decision (1) that there was no question in the present
                                                                              case of any error having been made by the competent
                                                                              authorities, and (2) that Miller NV had not acted in good
                                                                              faith, in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation No
                                                                              1697/79.
                                                                          — Infringement of the first paragraph of Article 13 of
Action brought on 18 June 1999 by Miller NV against the
          Commission of the European Communities                              Regulation No 1430/79:
                                                                              The Commission wrongly found in the contested decision
                           (Case T-147/99)                                    that the first of the conditions for the application of the
                                                                              first paragraph of Article 13 — namely, the existence of
                                                                              special circumstances — had not been met in the present
                          (1999/C 246/81)                                     case.
                                                                          — Failure to comply with the obligation to provide a
                     (Language of the Case: Dutch)                            statement of reasons (Article 253 EC).
                                                                          — In the alternative, breach of the principle of pro-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     portionality:
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 June 1999 by Miller NV,                            By requiring Miller NV to pay import duties in an amount
established at Willebroek (Belgium), represented by Y. Van                    greater than the countervailing charge, the Commission
Gerven and I. Bernaerts, of the Brussels Bar, with an address                 committed a breach of the principle of proportionality.
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11
Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the Commission to produce all documents on which
                                                                          Action brought on 21 June 1999 by Mrs Helga Weber
      it based its contested decision, together with all documents
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
      — including those of an administrative nature — relating
      to this matter, including, for example, those which
      prompted it to organise a mission to Turkey in 1993 for                                      (Case: T-149/99)
      the purposes of carrying out an investigation into the issue
      of ATR certificates for television sets, the results of that                                 (1999/C 246/82)
      mission and the reports drawn up in relation to it, any
      correspondence on that subject between the Commission
      and the Member States and between the Commission and                                  (Language of the case: German)
      the Turkish authorities, etc., in order that the same may be
      examined by the Court, and require those documents also             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      to be produced to Miller NV, in order to enable the latter          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      to examine whether it may use them by way of further                European Communities on 21 June 1999 by Mrs Helga Weber,
      support for its application in the present case and the pleas       Köln, represented by Anja Bornemann of Leinen & Derichs,
      advanced therein;                                                   Avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels.
 ---pagebreak--- C 246/42                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.8.1999
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                represented by Piero A. M. Ferrari, Aurelio Pappalardo and Pier
                                                                           Francesco Meneghini, of the Roma, Trapani and Milan Bars,
    declare that                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                           Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert Premier.
    1. the applicant is entitled to a survivor’s pension based
          on 35 % of a Grade A 6/8 salary with annual adjust-
          ments,                                                           The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
    2. the applicant is not bound to repay the amount of                   — annul Commission Decision C (1999) 532 of 4 March
          DM 40 518 .61 pursuant to the Commission’s decision                   1999 or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the grant
          of 21 September 1998,                                                 to be repaid to the Commission to such extent as may be
                                                                                decided in the course of the proceedings;
    and order the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                           — order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, who was divorced from her husband, a
Community official who died in 1973, and was entitled to be
maintained by him from that time, receives a widow’s                       The applicant contests Commission Decision C (1999) 532 of
pension from the Commission. The applicant claims that the                 4 March 1999, which reduces the contribution made to one
Commission has already committed numerous administrative                   of its subsidiaries by the Commission under Commission
errors in her case on previous occasions.                                  Decision C (93) 3395 of 26 November 1992 concerning grant
                                                                           of the EAGGF, Guidance Section, contribution under Council
                                                                           Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 (1), in connection with Project
The Commission informed her by letter of 20 August 1998                    No 92.ES.06.031 entitled ‘Demonstrative project for the
that her monthly pension payment had been incorrect since                  multiple optimisation of Vetiver (Vetiveria Zizanioides) A in the
February 1994 and did not correspond to the decision in the                Mediterranean area’.
relevant amendment notice, pursuant to which she is entitled
to a survivor’s pension of 26.56498 %, not 35 %, of a Grade
A 6/8 salary. She was therefore informed that this oversight               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in
would be corrected in the statement for September 1998 and                 Case T-141/99 Vela s.r.l. v Commission.
that the situation with regard to the overpaid sums would be
regularized.
                                                                           (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988
                                                                               laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No
The applicant claims that the Commission misapplied the                        2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (OJ L 337 of
provisions cited by her of Article 41 of Annex VIII to the Staff               24.12.1994, p. 11).
Regulations and Article 85 of the Staff Regulations. As was
correctly pointed out in the notice of complaint, the amount
of a pension may be reassessed in the event of an error or
omission in the calculation thereof. In exercising that discre-
tion, it is imperative that the Commission weigh up its interests
against those of the person concerned, which it did not do.
Furthermore, a lawful administrative act conferring a benefit
may not be annulled and even an unlawful administrative act
may only be annulled within a reasonable time.
                                                                           Action brought on 21 June 1999 by Tecnagrind s.l. —
                                                                           Tecnologias Agrarias e Industriales — against Commission
                                                                                           of the European Communities
                                                                                                    (Case T-151/99)
Action brought on 21 June 1999 by Tecnagrind s.l. against                                          (1999/C 246/84)
          Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-150/99)                                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                         (1999/C 246/83)                                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 21 June 1999 by Tecnagrind s.l.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        — Tecnologias agrarias e industralIes — represented by
                                                                           Piero A. M. Ferrari, Aurelio Pappalardo and Pier Francesco
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  Meneghini, of the Roma, Trapani and Milan Bars, with an
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain
European Communities on 21 June l 999 by Tecnagrind s.l.,                  Lorang, 51 Rue Albert Premier.