CELEX: C2000/192/37
Language: en
Date: 2000-07-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-116/00: Action brought on 3 May 2000 by Benthe Hørbye-Möller against the Commission of the European Communities

C 192/20                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8.7.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Action brought on 3 May 2000 by Benthe Hørbye-Möller
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 231 EC,
     Decision SG (2000) D/100623 of the Commission of
     22 December 1999 (1);                                                                         (Case T-116/00)
— order the Commission to reimburse to the applicant the
     costs necessarily incurred by the latter.
                                                                                                   (2000/C 192/37)
Pleas in law and principal arguments
By the contested decision, the Commission categorised the
draft law amending the legislation on property rights, as                                    (Language of the case: French)
notified to it by the German Government, as aid compatible
with the EC Treaty. The draft modifies the programme for the
acquisition of land provided for by the German Ausgleichslei-             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
stungsgesetz (Indemnification and Compensation Act), pursu-               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ant to which parcels of State-owned land in the new Federal               European Communities on 3 May 2000 by Benthe Hørbye-
Länder are to be sold to various groups of purchasers at prices           Möller, residing at Igel (Federal Republic of Germany), rep-
lower than their market value.                                            resented by Louis Tinti, of the Luxembourg Bar.
The applicant states that it represents several hundred former
owners who are not entitled to any restitution and whose                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
entitlement to assert their rights is subordinated, under the
Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz, to that of other groups of pur-
chasers. The contested decision is of direct and individual
concern to the applicant and/or to its members.                           — annul the appointing authority’s decision dated 16 January
                                                                              2000 rejecting her complaint No 516/99 concerning the
                                                                              refusal to include her name on the list of officials proposed
The application is based, in particular, on the following pleas
                                                                              by the Official Publications Office for promotion to
in law:
                                                                              grade B2 in the 1999 promotions procedure;
— The decision in issue does not comply with the obligation,
     imposed by Article 253 EC, to provide a statement of
     reasons.                                                             — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision promot-
                                                                              ing officials of the Official Publications Office to grade B2
     The reasons given by the Commission by way of justifi-                   in the 1999 promotions procedure;
     cation for its finding that the discrimination on grounds of
     nationality to which it had itself objected in its Decision
     C (1999) 42 of 20 January 1999 (2) is eliminated by                  — take note of the fact that she reserves the right in due
     the draft law are not in themselves conclusive. The                      course to claim compensation for the material and non-
     Commission’s main assertion, to the effect that that                     material loss suffered by her.
     discrimination has been eliminated by the deletion of the
     rules relating to the reference date, is not sufficiently borne
     out.
— The decision infringes the EC Treaty. The Commission has                Pleas in law and main arguments
     not taken full account of the scope of the prohibition of
     discrimination on grounds of nationality.
     Contrary to the view expressed by the Commission,                    The applicant contests the refusal by the appointing authority
     Paragraph 3a of the Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz, in the                to include her name on the list of officials proposed for
     amended version thereof, is not in conformity with                   promotion to grade B2 in the 1999 promotions procedure.
     Community law. A supplementary purchase price claim
     cannot be regarded as equivalent to a claim for restitution
     of aid. On the contrary, Community law required that all
     the parcels of land released in consequence of the invalidity        In support of her claims, he pleads infringement of
     of the allocation decisions adopted in contravention of the          Articles 5(3), 25 and 45 of the Staff Regulations. She considers
     implementation prohibition provided for in the third                 in that regard that the appointing authority has committed a
     sentence of Article 88(3) EC should be re-allocated in their         manifest error of assessment and has acted in a manner
     entirety.                                                            contrary to the interests of the service.
(1) OJ C 46 of 19.2.2000, p. 2.
(2) OJ L 107 of 24.4.1999, p. 21.