CELEX: C2002/003/80
Language: en
Date: 2002-01-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-275/01: Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez Moreno against European Parliament

C 3/46                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.1.2002
Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Valmont Neder-                     Lastly, the applicant asserts that the Commission misused its
land B.V. against the Commission of the European Com-                   powers when assessing the value of the land at the time of the
                            munities                                    purchase and when assessing the element of State aid relating
                                                                        to what the applicant maintains is a car park used by the
                                                                        public, and concerning the sums charged by way of interest
                         (Case T-274/01)                                on the alleged State aid.
                          (2002/C 3/79)
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez
European Communities on 22 October 2001 by Valmont                                  Moreno against European Parliament
Nederland B.V., established at Maarheeze (Netherlands), rep-
resented by André Van Landuyt, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.                                                                                     (Case T-275/01)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (2002/C 3/80)
(1) annul Decision No C 2001 2231 of the Commission of                                    (Language of the case: French)
      18 July 2001;
(2) order the Commission, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules
      of Procedure, to pay all the costs of these proceedings.
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                        26 October 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez Moreno, residing in
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Berlin, represented by Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.
According to the contested decision of the Commission, the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
applicant has received State aid in the form of a reduced
purchase price for the building land on which the applicant
now maintains its establishment in the Netherlands and a                —    annul the decision of the President of the European
subsidy for the installation of a car park on it. The Commission             Parliament, contained in a letter of 19 July 2001, rejecting
is demanding that the aid received be repaid.                                the applicant’s request and thus confirming the decision
                                                                             of the European Parliament no longer to call upon the
                                                                             services of freelance interpreters who have reached the
The applicant maintains that, in adopting its decision, the                  age of 65 years, as in the case of the applicant;
Commission has infringed Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
According to the applicant, the Commission has not shown
that the applicant benefited from an aid measure in the                 —    annul the inter-institutional decision referred to by the
purchase of the building land. It claims that that purchase took             Secretary General of the European Parliament in the letter
place on market terms and conditions. Moreover, any aid                      of 5 March 2001;
which may have been received had no effect on competition
within the common market or on trade between Member
                                                                        —    consequently, acknowledge the applicant’s right to con-
States.
                                                                             tinue to provide her services as a freelance interpreter,
                                                                             either in the service of the European Parliament or any
                                                                             other Community institution, beyond the age of 65;
The applicant also pleads infringement of essential procedural
requirements, more specifically of the right to a fair hearing.
According to the applicant, the Commission relies on a report           —    order compensation for the material and non-material
on the value of the land which was drawn up previously                       damage suffered by the applicant, provisionally assessed
without any involvedment on the part of the applicant.                       at one euro;
Likewise, after the procedure was opened pursuant to
Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, its observations were not taken
into account.                                                           —    order the defendant to pay all the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.1.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 3/47
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          on 26 October 2001 by Mély Garroni, residing in Rome,
                                                                         represented by Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.
The applicant is a freelance interpreter who has worked
regularly for the European Parliament since 1986. She has also           The applicant claims that the Court should:
worked regularly in the same capacity for the Commission. In
the course of the month in which she reached the age of 65,
the applicant was informed orally that the Commission had                —     annul the inter-institutional decision of the European
purportedly adopted a decision providing that, under a full                    Union, as referred to in the letter from G. Macario of
application of Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment of                   24 January 2001, rendering henceforth impossible for
Other Servants of the European Communities (CEOS), free-                       the European Parliament, as a result of the application of
lance interpreters could no longer be engaged beyond the age                   Article 78 CEOS, as amended, to retain or recruit freelance
of 65. In December 2000 the applicant learned informally that                  interpreters — such as the applicant — beyond the age
the European Parliament was obliged to apply that decision                     of 65 years;
with effect from 1 April 2001.
                                                                         —     in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the President
                                                                               of the European Parliament, contained in a letter of
The applicant, among others, lodged a complaint against the                    20 July 2001, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;
memorandum informing her of the inter-institutional decision
no longer to recruit freelance interpreters over the age of 65
years. The President of the European Parliament rejected that            —     consequently uphold the applicant’s right to continue to
complaint.                                                                     provide services to the European Parliament — or any
                                                                               other institution — beyond the age-limit of 65 years;
In support of her application, the applicant claims that                 —     order provisional payment of one euro to the applicant
Article 78 CEOS cannot be relied upon as a basis for a rule                    by way of compensation for the material and non-
setting the age of 65 years as a limit for freelance interpreters.             material damage suffered;
That provision is a derogation from the Staff Regulations and
refers to an agreement between the European Parliament, the              —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western European
Union. Article 78 makes no mention, either express or implied,
of Article 74 CEOS which provides for the termination of
auxiliary staff contracts; moreover, freelance interpreters do
not have a contract within the meaning of Article 74 CEOS.               Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant pleads, furthermore, breach of the principle of            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
non-retroactivity and of the principle of non-discrimination             relied upon in Case T-275/01 Alvarez Moreno v Parliament.
and of acquired rights, legitimate expectations, sound adminis-
tration and legal certainty. In addition to her claims for
annulment, the applicant also seeks compensation for the
material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.
                                                                         Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Romuald Stevens
                                                                             against Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Mély Garroni                                                (Case T-277/01)
                 against European Parliament
                                                                                                   (2002/C 3/82)
                        (Case T-276/01)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
                         (2002/C 3/81)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 26 October 2001 by Romuald
An action against the European Parliament was brought before             Stevens, residing in Bertem (Belgium), represented by Jean-
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, lawyers.