CELEX: C1996/233/27
Language: en
Date: 1996-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 29 May 1996 by Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcantara Refinarias - Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-82/96)

10 . 8 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 233/ 15
— order the Commission to pay to each applicant, as                   Action brought on 29 May 1996 by Associaçâo dos
     compensation for the non-material damage suffered , the          Refinadores de Açucar Portugueses ( ARAP), Alcantara
     sum of Bfrs 50 000,                                              Refinarias — Açucares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açucar
                                                                      Reunidas SA against the Commission of the European
                                                                                               Communities
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                                            ( Case T-82/96 )
                                                                                              ( 96/C 233 /27 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                     (Language of the case: English)
The applicants, Commission officials employed in the
Institute for Transuranic Elements, Karlsruhe, state that
they were also the applicants in Case T-64/92 , in which              An action against the Commission of the European
judgment was delivered by the Court of First Instance on              Communities was brought before the Court of First
27 October 1994 . In that judgment, the Court of First                Instance of the European Communities on 29 May 1996 by
Instance annulled their pay slips for January 1 992 , in so far       Associaçâo dos Refinadores de Açucar Portugueses ( ARAP ),
as they applied a weighting for Germany calculated by                 Alcantara Refinarias — Açucares SA and RAR Refinarias de
reference to the cost of living in Bonn , although Berlin had         Açucar Reunidas SA, represented by Gerard van der Wal ,
since October 1990 become the capital of the Federal                  member of the Bar of the Netherlands Supreme Court ( Orde
Republic of Germany . The applicants also state that the              van Advocaten bij de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden ), of
appointing authority had agreed to extend the effects of the          Barents & Krans, Advocaten Notarissen, with an address
judgment of the Court of First Instance to all pay slips drawn        for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 31
                                                                      Grand Rue .
up after January 1992 , in so far as they apply a weighting
calcualted by reference to the cost of living in Bonn .
                                                                      The applicants claim that the Court should :
In consequence of the judgment of the Court of First
Instance, the Commission sent to the Council a proposal for           — déclaré the application admissible ,
the fixing, with retroactive effect from 1 October 1990 , of a
weighting for Germany calculated on the basis of the cost of
living in Berlin , as well as specific weightings for Bonn and        — declare the decisions of 11 January 1996 and/or
                                                                          19 March 1996 and/or 23 November 1995 void :
Karlsruhe . At its meeting on 19 December 1994 , the Council
adopted Regulation ( EEC ) No 3161 /94 adjusting, with
effect from 1 July 1994, the remuneration and pensions of                 — 11 January 1996 ( SG ( 96 ) D/ 1245 aid No N 1 1 /95 ),
officials and other servants of the European Communities                      sent to the applicants on 1 April 1996 ,
and the weightings applied thereto, which provides , in
particular, for the fixing, in accordance with the                        — 19 March 1996 ( VI/012420 ) relating to complaint
Commission proposal , of a specific weighting for Karlsruhe .                 No 94/5122 , and
It nevertheless decided to send to Coreper the proposal for
the retroactived fixing of weightings for Germany .                       — 23 November 1995 ( Aid No N 832/95 ) ('),
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay the applicants 1 costs .
The applicants consider that, as a result of the annulment by
the Court of First Instance of their pay slips for January
 1992 ( which annulment must necessarily extend to all pay            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
slips drawn up subsequently ), it was incumbent on the
Commission to draw up new pay slips applying to the
remuneration, in the absence of a specific weighting for              The applicants state that on November 1994 they sent a
Karlsruhe, a weighting calculated by reference to the cost of         complaint to the Commission requesting it to initiate the
 living in the capital of the country . They consider that, by        procedure provided for in Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty
 refusing to do so , the Commission has infringed Article 176         concerning the State aid granted by the Portuguese
 of the EC Treaty.                                                    Government to DAI ( Sociedade de Desinvolvemento
                                                                      Agro-Industrial ) for the establishment of a beet-sugar
                                                                      factory . On 12 December 1994 , the Commission informed
The applicants further maintain that the Commission has               the applicants that it had decided not to initiate the
 breached its duty to have regard for the welfare and interests       procedure or to take the other measures requested . As the
 of officials ( Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of officials ),   letter appeared to constitute a decision confirming the
 and has infringed Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations        approval of the national aid schemes under Articles 92 and
 and Annex XI thereto , inasmuch as the proposals submitted           93 of the EC Treaty and contained the refusal of the
 by it to the Council unlawfully provide for the fixing, with         measures requested , the applicants brought an action
 retroactive effect, of a specific weighting for Karlsruhe .          against that decision before the Court of First Instance ( 2 ). In
                                                                      that case the Commission lodged an objection of
                                                                       inadmissibility in which it emphasized that it had not yet
                                                                      reached a final position . Under those circumstances , the
                                                                      applicants sent new complaints to the Commission .
 ---pagebreak---  No C 233/ 16              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10 . 8 . 96
 In this action the applicants challenge the following                        results in an infringement of Article 213 of the Fourth
 decisions :                                                                  ACP-EEC Convention .
                                                                          ') OJ No C 128 , 1 . 5 . 1996 , p . 3 .
 1 . The Commission's decision of 1 1 January 1996 ( SG(96 )              -) Case T-83/95 , OJ No C 137, 31 . 6 , 1 995 .
       D/ 1245 ), addressed to the Portuguese Government. By
       this decision the Commission authorized the Portuguese
       State aid ( fiscal incentive and training costs ) granted by
       the Portuguese Government to DAI for the
       establishment of a beet-sugar factory in Portugal . The
       Commission also decided not to investigate the                    Action brought on 29 May 1996 by G. van der Wal against
       investment aid , as it was granted by the Portuguese                     the Commission of the European Communities
       Government within the framework of Regulation ( EEC )                                      ( Case T-83 /96 )
       No 866/90 and Community co-financing.
                                                                                                    ( 96/C 233/28 )
      The applicants maintain that the decision is unlawful
       and erroneous for the following reasons :                                         (Language of the case: Dutcb)
      — the decision is inadequately and insufficiently                  An action against the Commission of the European
           reasoned ( Article 190 of the EC Treaty ),                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities on 29 May 1996 by
      — procedural requirements have not been observed :                 G. van der Wal , of Kraainem , Belgium , represented by P.
           notwithstanding the active participation of the               Bleeker and L. Y. J. M. Parret, of the Brussels Bar, with an
           applicants , they were not invited to take part in the       address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A.
           procedure ; it is contrary to a fair and transparent         May, 31 Grand Rue .
           application of the State aid provisions to leave the
           applicants outside the administrative procedure .            The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — annul the Commission's decision of 29 March 1 996 ,
2.    The    Commission's       decision   of  19   March     1996           and
      ( VI/012420 ). By this decision the Commission informed
      the applicants of the rejection of their complaint and of         — order the Commission to bear the costs .
      the authorization of 11 January 1996 .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      The applicants consider that the decision is unlawful
      and erroneous for reasons similar to those put forward            On         the     basis        of        Commission Decision
      in Case T-83 /95 .                                                94/90/ECSC/EC/Euratom (') the applicant asked the
                                                                        Commission for copies of the letters it had sent to three
                                                                        national judicial bodies referred to in the 24th Report on
3 . The Commission's decision of 23 November 1995 ( Aid
                                                                        Competition ( 1994 ). That request was rejected by the
      No N832/95 ) not to raise an objection under Articles 92          contested decision .
      and 93 of the EC Treaty against aid for the marketing of
      agricultural products with the object of improving the            The applicant submits inter alia that :
      conditions of processing and marketing agricultural
      products .                                                        — the contested decision does not satisfy the requirement
                                                                             that reasons be given under Article 190 of the EC
      The applicants explain that at this stage of the procedure             Treaty,
      they do not have any information , apart from the
      publication of the authorization by the Commission ( OJ           — the 'protection of the public interest' may be invoked
      No C 128 , 1996 , p . 3 ). However, they cannot discount               only because of the particular circumstances of an
      the possibility that this authorization concerns the                   individual case , of which there was no mention by the
      inclusion of the beet-sugar sector in the national                     Commission in this instance,
      legislation for the application of Regulation ( EEC )
      No 866/90 . Should this be the case , they raise against          — the derogation for 'court proceedings ' relates to
      this decision all the pleas of law set out earlier in their            procedures in which the Commission is a party, and not
      application .                                                          the provision of information — which , moreover, was
                                                                             not confidential — to national courts,
Finally, the applicants submit that the State aid to DAI and
the Commission's decision not to take measures and initiate             — therê is no basis for the Commission's view that
the procedure requested by them and to authorize the aid                     disclosure of the letters would undermine cooperation
and/or not to raise any objections :                                         with national courts .
— is contrary to the Multilateral Agreements on Trade,                  C ) OJ No L 46 , 1994 , p . 58 .
     more specifically the Agreement on Agriculture
     ( Article 6 of Annex II ), and