CELEX: C1996/294/23
Language: en
Date: 1996-10-05 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 17 July 1996 by Gilberte Gebhard against the European Parliament (Case T-109/96)

No C 294/ 12          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5 . 10 . 96
Action brought on 17 July 1996 by Gilberte Gebhard                   auxiliary staff within the meaning of the conditions of
               against the European Parliament                       employment of other servants, a status that the applicant
                                                                     cannot have in view of the terms on which she was
                       ( Case T- 109/96 )
                                                                     employed . In contrast to the conditions laid down in
                         ( 96/C 294/23 )                             Article 52 of the conditions of employment of other
                                                                     servants, she had been engaged frequently every year since
                (Language of the Case: French)                       1976 . In addition, the duties that she assumed do not fall
                                                                     within the circumstances referred to in Article 52 ( a ).
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European                   Secondly, Article 78 of the conditions of employment of
Communities on 17 July 1996 by Gilberte Gebhard,                     other servants cannot in any way provide a basis for
resident in Heidelberg ( Germany ), represented by Thierry           Parliament's unilateral adoption of rules specific to
Schmitt and Pierre Soler-Couteaux, of the Strasbourg                 conference interpreters having the status»of auxiliary staff
Bar .
                                                                     for the purposes of the conditions of employment of other
                                                                     servants . It is not its task to determine unilaterally the status
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         of auxiliary staff, since that power belongs exclusively to the
                                                                     Council of Ministers under Article 212 of the Treaty as
— annul the decision of 10 June 1996 taken by the
                                                                     amended by Article 24 of the Merger Treaty.
     Secretary-General of the European Parliament rejecting
     her complaint,
                                                                     Finally, the applicant's liability to Community tax results
                                                                     solely from her accepting, by way of agreement, the
— declare income earned by her to be exempt from                     conditions laid down by Parliament. An agreement
     Community tax and order repayment of tax paid,                  constitutes a totally inadequate legal basis, in the area of
     together with interest at the rate laid down by law,            taxation, for justifying the imposition of Community tax
                                                                     and exemption from national income tax, since
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs .                   determination of the tax status of residents is pre-eminently
                                                                     an aspect of State sovereignty . A Community institution 's
                                                                     power to organize its own affairs cannot prejudice
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                     Article 13 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities
                                                                     of the European Communities and the regulations giving
The applicant contests the decision of the Secretary-General         effect to it .
of the European Parliament rejecting her complaint against
the levying of Community tax on remuneration paid in
respect of her duties as a conference interpreter at the
Parliament .
The applicant was engaged from 6 to 9 November 1 995 and
from 11 to 14 December 1995 as a conference interpreter
for meetings organized by the European institutions in
Luxembourg ( in this case the European Parliament ).                 Action brought on 22 July 1996 by Dominique-Francois
According to the letters appointing her and confirming her                  Bareth against the Committee of the Regions
engagement, she was to perform her duties as an interpreter                                    ( Case T-110/96 )
pursuant to the rules on remuneration , allowances and                                           ( 96/C 294/24 )
expenses payable to conference interpreters applicable to
the institution for which she performed the services .
Parliament took the contested decision when replying to the                           (Language of the case: French)
invoices corresponding to the above dates, in which the
applicant had expressly requested payment of the
remuneration due to her without deduction of Community               An action against the Committee of the Regions was
tax . The legal basis for that decision was that the applicant       brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
was subject to the ' Rules of the European Parliament                Communities on 22 July 1996 by Dominique-Francois
applicable to auxiliary session interpreters adopted under           Bareth, residing in Brussels , represented by Jean-Noel Louis,
Article 78 of the conditions of employment of other servants         Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel of the Brussels Bar,
jof the European Communities'. Since Article 78 falls within         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Title III of the conditions of employment of other servants,         Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 , rue Glesener .
which deals with auxiliary staff, it follows, according to the
Parliament, that staff recruited on the basis of that
provision, must, like all auxiliary staff, be liable to              The applicant claims that the Court should :
 Community tax .
                                                                     — annul the decisions not to appoint the applicant to one of
In the applicant's view, those reasons for refusal are                   the posts filled at the end of internal competition
manifestly unlawful . First, Article 78 applies only to                  A/02/95 ,