CELEX: C1997/318/33
Language: en
Date: 1997-10-18 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 29 April 1997 by Michel Hautem against the European Investment Bank (Case T-140/97)

C 318/ 16               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  18 . 10 . 97
Instance of 19 June 1996 in Case T-573/93 Caballero                              — the sum of Bfrs 34 654 629 subject to increase
Montoya v. Commission [ 1996] ECR-SC 11-909 — the                                   or adjustment in the course of the proceedings,
Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed
of C. W. Bellamy, President, A. Kalogeropoulos and                               — the sum of Bfrs 2 500 000 by way of
A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                            compensation for the loss of preferential rates
24 July 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:                            of interest on building loans,
1 . The application for interpretation is dismissed as                           — Bfrs 1 000 000 by way of compensation for the
     inadmissible.                                                                  injury to his professional reputation,
2 . Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.                       — order the EIB to pay the sum of Bfrs 300 000 to the
                                                                            applicant in his capacity as legal guardian of the
(') OJ C 27, 28 . 1 . 1994 .                                                person and property of his child who is a minor,
                                                                        — order the EIB to bear all costs .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 29 April 1997 by Michel Hautem
            against the European Investment Bank
                          ( Case T-140/97)
                                                                        The EIB alleges in the contested decision that the
                             ( 97/C 318/33 )                            applicant, who has been employed as a messenger since
                                                                        16 December 1994, founded a company together with one
                                                                        of his colleagues from the EIB ( Mr Yasse (')); that,
                 (Language of the case: French)                         without informing the EIB, he engaged in commercial
                                                                        activities outside the EIB on behalf of that company and
                                                                        used EIB property; and that he failed to declare his wife's
An action against the European Investment Bank was                      professional involvement with the company. The applicant
 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European             was therefore dismissed in accordance with Article 39,
 Communities on 29 April 1997 by Michel Hautem,                         fourth paragraph, of the EIB Staff Regulations .
residing in Schouweiler ( Luxembourg ), represented by
 Pascale Delvaux de Fenffe and Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten,
 of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                        The applicant alleges, first, infringement of Article 40 of
                                                                        the EIB Staff Regulations, of general principles common to
                                                                        the laws of the Member States and, in particular, of the
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                            right to a fair hearing.
— annul the decision taken on 31 January 1997 by the
     European Investment Bank ( EIB ),                                  The applicant's second plea is that the EIB committed an
                                                                        error of fact and of assessment inasmuch as the contested
                                                                        decision and the deliberations preceding it assume the
 — as a consequence, order the applicant to be reinstated               truth of the facts contested or place a manifestly erroneous
     in his duties,                                                     construction on the facts, inconsistent with their
                                                                        substance .
 — order the EIB to pay the applicant:
                                                                        The third plea alleges breach of the formal requirements,
     — upon his reinstatement, the sum of Bfrs 2 671 632                procedures and powers laid down by Article 40 of the
         — a provisional amount subject to increase in the              Staff Regulations in respect of the Joint Committee .
         course of the proceedings — representing salary
         arrears, together with Bfrs 1 000 000 by way of
         compensation for material and non-material                     Fourthly, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of
         damage;                                                        proportionality and/or of the protection of legitimate
                                                                        expectations .
     — should his reinstatement prove impossible:
         — the sum of Bfrs 1 393 616 by way of ordinary                 Lastly, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of
             compensatory settlement for lawful dismissal,              proportionality and of the general duty of impartiality,
 ---pagebreak--- 18 . 10 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 318/ 17
and a manifest error of assessment in that neither the Joint           and the acceptance of the A.TR.l movement certificate,
Committee nor the investigating authority sought to place              the Turkish customs authorities had charged no
the allegations in proper perspective by weighing them                 proportionate duty on components of third country origin,
against the applicant's service record, although the                   Member States were called upon by the Commission to
excellence of that record could and should have served as              effect post-clearance recovery of duties on colour
a mitigating factor, leading to greater clemency in the                television sets imported from Turkey. The applicant lodged
decision adopted.                                                      a complaint at the Hauptzollamt Krefeld against the
                                                                       revised assessment notice which followed, and claimed
                                                                       remission of the duties claimed retrospectively.
(') Case T- 14 1 /97 Bernard Yasse v. BEI.
                                                                       Intensive correspondence followed between the applicant
                                                                       and the Federal Ministry of Finance, the Federal Ministry
                                                                       of Finance and the Turkish Government, and with the
                                                                       Commission .
Action brought on 24 June 1997 by Kaufring AG against
        the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       In August 1996, the Federal Republic of Germany referred
                          ( Case T-186/97)                             to the Commission for a ruling pursuant to Article 13 of
                            ( 97/C 318/34 )                            Council Regulation ( EEC) No 1430/79 on the repayment
                                                                       or remission of import or export duties as to whether it
                                                                       was justified to remit the import duties in this case .
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       The Commission thereupon issued the contested decision
An action against the Commission of the European                       of 19 February 1997, addressed to Germany, to the effect
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      that remission of import duties in the applicant's case was
Instance of the European Communities on 24 June 1997                   not justified .
by Kaufring AG, whose registered office is at Dusseldorf,
represented by Dietrich Ehle , Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                The applicant takes the view that the import duties
Marc Lucius, 6 rue Michel Welter, Luxembourg.                          imposed on the value of the finished colour television sets
                                                                       must be remitted . It alleges infringement of the duty to
                                                                       state reasons pursuant to Article 190 of the EC Treaty,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            and of its rights to be heard and put forward arguments in
                                                                       its defence at the time the contested decision was adopted.
— annul         Commission        Decision   REM      15/96    of
     19 February 1997, refusing the remission of a payment             The applicant further argues that the Commission based
     of DM 545 727,35,                                                 its decision only on Article 13 of Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                       No 1430/79 , and in applying that provision committed
                                                                       obvious legal and factual errors, especially a clearly
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                              erroneous determination and assessment of the facts . In
                                                                       particular, the Commission was clearly wrong to
                                                                       determinate that the completed A.TR.l movement
                                                                       certificates    did not constitute  a  fact on which the
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       applicant was entitled to rely by way of 'special
                                                                       circumstances'. Neither the Turkish exporters nor the
                                                                       applicant as importer could be accused of 'obvious
 During the period from September to December 1992, the                negligence' or any other fault.
 applicant imported a number of consignments of colour
 television sets from Turkey, which were produced there
 using parts which came partly from third countries
 (particularly Korea and Japan). The applicant had bought              Finally, the applicant argues that the Commission was
 the sets before importation from Crown Europe GmbH in                 manifestly in error, when applying Article 13 of
 Gelsenkirchen .      On    the   basis  of A.TR.l     movement         Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79, in failing to apply also the
 certificates which were produced and found by the Haupt­              principles of proportionality, equal treatment and
 zollamt Krefeld to be in order, no duties were levied on               reasonableness . The applicant as importer has, it
 the applicant's importation of the sets.                               maintains, been retrospectively burdened with duties the
                                                                        non-levying of which fell clearly outside the area of risks
                                                                        it can be expected to bear.
 After the Commission carried out an investigation in 1993
 of various colour television manufacturers in Turkey, and
 established that, on the exportation of the television sets