CELEX: C1998/312/40
Language: en
Date: 1998-10-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 23 July 1998 by Peter Clausen against the Council of the European Union (Case T-113/98)

C 312/16              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10.10.98
The applicant submits that, in accordance with the                       rights transferred to the Community pension scheme
judgment in Orkem (3), it is not obliged to answer                       which was not taken into consideration in the
questions which could lead to self-incrimination. It further             calculation of the pensionable service to be taken into
maintains that in accordance with Article 6(1) of the                    account pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the
European Convention on Human Rights, the guarantees                      Staff Regulations,
contained in which are fundamental principles of
Community law and thus take precedence over the merely
legislative provisions of Regulation 17, it is legally entitled      Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
to refuse to take any action whereby it would be
compelled directly to incriminate itself in the investigation.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Self-incrimination has, it adds, also been held to be an
infringement of the presumption of innocence under
Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human                     The pleas in law and main arguments are those already
Rights and of the negative freedom of expression                     raised in Case T-103/98 Kristensen v. Council (1).
protected by Article 10 of the Convention. The applicant's
right not to be compelled to incriminate itself by its own
actions arises not merely from Community law, but also,              (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998, p. 36.
the applicant submits, arises at the same time and in
parallel from German domestic law in so far as it is not
superseded by Community law.
By directly fixing a coercive fine, the Commission
disregarded the two-stage procedure laid down for that               Action brought on 29 July 1998 by Ivar Langer Andersen
purpose, and failed in particular to communicate the                          against the Council of the European Union
points of complaint, as required before fixing the amount
of daily coercive penalties, to allow the applicant a proper                               (Case T-118/98)
hearing and to comply with the other procedural                                              (98/C 312/41)
requirements. Moreover, the Commission's fixing of the
daily penalty at the maximum amount of ECU 1 000 was
disproportionate and thus an abuse of its discretion. The                           (Language of the case: French)
applicant comprehensively answered seven of the eleven
questions put to it in the context of the Commission's
enquiry. It was not obliged to answer the four remaining             An action against the Council of the European Union was
questions, as in that respect it could rely on its right not         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
to be compelled to incriminate itself.                               Communities on 29 July 1998 by Ivar Langer Andersen
                                                                     resident in Rungsted Kyst, Denmark, represented by Jean-
(1) Case T-30/91 Solvay v. Commission [1995] ECR II-1821.            NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and
(2) Case T-36/91 ICI v. Commission [1995] ECR II-1847.               FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
(3) Case 374/87 Orkem v. Commission [1989] ECR 3282.                 for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire
                                                                     Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 23 July 1998 by Peter Clausen against              Ð annul the Council decision of 6 October 1997 refusing
             the Council of the European Union                           the request for refund of that part of the pension
                        (Case T-113/98)                                  rights transferred to the Community pension scheme
                                                                         which was not taken into consideration in the
                         (98/C 312/40)
                                                                         calculation of the pensionable service to be taken into
                                                                         account pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the
               (Language of the case: French)                            Staff Regulations,
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
Communities on 23 July 1998 by Peter Clausen, resident
in La Hulpe, Belgium, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments are those already
30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                     raised in Case T-103/98 Kristensen v. Council (1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998, p. 36.
Ð annul the Council decision of 6 October 1997 refusing
     the request for refund of that part of the pension