CELEX: C1995/248/36
Language: en
Date: 1995-09-23 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 14 July 1995 by etablissements J. Richard Ducros against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-149/95)

No C 248/ 16            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23 . 9 . 95
He states in this connection that his staff report for the             — order the Parliament to pay the costs .
period 1991 /93 was notified to him only on 1 July 1994,
belatedly in relation to what is laid down in the provisions           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
applicable; notification in fact took place after publication
of the list of officials most deserving of promotion drawn up
by Directorate-General XX for 1994 . When examining the                The applicant challenges the decision by the Parliament,
                                                                       notified by letter of 29 September 1994 , to take steps to
applicant's case, the promotions committee therefore had
available only a belated and inaccurate staff report, since it         recover, pursuant to Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, part
was subsequently amended after the applicant had                       of the household allowance that she had been receiving from
submitted a compliant. The applicant concludes that the list           1 June 1987 corresponding to the prime de menage paid to
of officials most deserving of promotion drawn up on that              her husband by the Luxembourg authorities over the same
basis by the promotions committee, and the subsequent                  period . She considers that the rule against overlapping
promotion decisions adopted by the appointing authority,               benefits is not applicable in her case, since both the legal
are void pursuant to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations .             nature and the conditions for granting the household
                                                                       allowance are completely different from those governing the
                                                                       prime de menage.
The applicant states further that the promotions committee
committed a manifest error of assessment in calculating his
seniority in the grade . He considers that that seniority              The applicant points out in this connection that under
should have been calculated from 1985 , the date on which              Luxembourg legislation the prime de menage: ( a ) is
he was promoted to LA 5 , and not from 1989 , the date on              contractual in nature; ( b ) is paid regardless of family
which he was appointed to Grade A 5 having succeeded in                expenses; and ( c ) is subject to tax. She concludes that despite
internal competition COM/2/87 for transfer from the                    its name, the prime de menage is not a family allowance , in
Language Service to Category A.                                        contrast to the household allowance paid by the European
                                                                       Communities .
Action brought on 13 July 1995 by Genevieve Pavan against              Action brought on 14 July 1995 by etablissements
                     the European Parliament                           J. Richard Ducros against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                   Communities
                         ( Case T-l 47/95 )
                           ( 95/C 248/35 )                                                      ( Case T-149/95 )
                                                                                                  ( 95/C 248/36 )
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                      (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance on 13 July 1995 by                  An action against the Commission of the European
Genevieve Pavan, resident in Luxembourg, represented by                Communities was brought before the Court of First
Alain Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for               Instance of the European Communities on 14 July 1995 by
service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 51 Rue                 Etablissements J. Richard Ducros, established in Paris,
Albert ler .                                                           represented by Philippe Genin, of the Lyons Bar, with an
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                       Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision adopted on 29 September 1994 by the
     European Parliament pursuant to Article 85 of the Staff           — annul the decision of the Commission closing the
     Regulations,                                                           procedure which it had initiated,
— declare that the prime de menage received by the                     — order the defendant to pay costs .
     applicant's husband should not be set off against the
     household allowance received by her,
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— declare that the European Parliament should reimburse                The applicant, a public limited liability company
     all the sums improperly retained pursuant to the decision          incorporated under French law, engaged in the metal
     of 29 September 1994 ,                                             construction and boiler-marking sector, contests the
                                                                        Decision of the Commission, published in the Official
— declare that the applicant should receive in their entirety          Journal of the European Communities of 16 May 1995
     all the household allowance payments that should have              under No C 120, p. 4 , in which it decided to close the
     been paid from December 1994 ,                                     procedure initiated on 11 March 1992 under Article 93 ( 2 )
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 9 . 95          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 248/ 17
of the Treaty of Rome and to authorize the aid granted to           The applicant claims that the Court should :
CMF SUD and CMF by the Italian authorities in the form of
successive financial contributions .
                                                                    — annul in its entirety the Commission decision set out in
                                                                         its Notice C 25/94 ( ex N 11 /94 ) concluding that aid
According to the applicant, it is because of the public                 which the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg proposed
financing in favour of those two undertakings that, when                 granting to ProfilARBED SA conformed to Article 3 of
tenders were sought by the Marseilles Chamber of                         Commission Decision No 3855/91 /ECSC and was thus
Commerce and Industry in relation to certain works to be                 compatible with the common market,
carried out at Marseilles airport, the tender submitted by
CMF SUD was preferred to that submitted by the applicant.
The difference between the prices tendered by the two               — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action
companies was found upon comparison to amount to                         including those of the applicant.
33% .
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The Commission decided not to oppose the financial
contributions at issue, on the basis of commitments given by
the Italian authorities in the context of a privatization           The applicant, an association representing British Iron and
programme undertaken by Iritecna, the parent company of             Steel producers, challenges the Commission Decision ,
CMF SUD and CMF . Those commitments consisted in                    reproduced in Commission Notice C 25/94, declaring
particular of the liquidation of CMF SUD and of the                 compatible with the Common market an aid which
privatization of CMF by no later than 30 June 1995 .                the Luxembourg authorities proposed to grant to Arbed
                                                                    for the construction of a new electric steel plant at the
The applicant maintains that the contested aid is illegal ,         Esch-Shifflange steel complex, replacing the existing LDAC
since it was authorized in contravention of Article 93 ( 3 )        Steel complex. The contested Decision concludes that the
of the Treaty and such illegality cannot be regularized             aid is compatible with the common market because it is in
retroactively. According to the applicant, the Commission           conformity with Article 3 of the Fifth Steel Aid Code ( SAC ),
disregarded the conditions governing the grant of aid to            which authorizes the grant of aid for environmental
undertakings in difficulties, as defined in the strict approach     protection in certain circumstances .
taken in the ' Eighth Report on Competition Policy' and the
communication concerning 'New Community guidelines on               The applicant submits that the contested decision purports
State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty '.     to interpret Article 3 of the fifth SAC as providing that an aid
There was never any plausible aim of making the recipient           may be qualified as environmental aid where it is to be used
undertakings viable ; no requirement was imposed in                 for the construction of new plant, and that such an
relation to any serious recovery plan; and, lastly, those           interpretation is contrary to the plain and unambiguous
 undertakings have received aid on four occasions, whereas it       wording of Article 3 of the Fifth SAC, according to which
 should not have been necessary to provide restructuring aid        aid granted to steel undertakings for bringing them into line
 more than once .                                                   with new statutory environmental standards may be
                                                                    deemed compatible with the common market.
                                                                    The point of view of the Commission presupposes that the
                                                                    same principles of interpretation should be applicable to all
                                                                    forms of aid for environmental protection whether
                                                                    authorized under the EC Treaty or the ECSC Treaty .
                                                                    However, whereas the EC Treaty permits the granting of aid
 Action brought on 19 July 1995 by The British Iron and              by Member States in certain circumstances set out in
 Steel Producers ' Association against Commission of the             Article 92 , Article 4 ( c ) of the ECSC Treaty provides that all
                   European Communities                              subsidies or aids granted by States in any form whatsoever
                        Case T-150/95 )                              are to be prohibited .
                         ( 95/C 248/37 )
                                                                     On the other hand the SAC is, in itself, a derogation from the
                                                                     ECSC principle of prohibition of State aid, prompted by the
                Language of the case: English                        severe problems that ECSC undertakings had and have still
                                                                     to face . The applicant considers, therefore, on the basis of an
                                                                     overriding principle of law, that derogations from a Treaty
 An action against the Commission of the European                    principle should be interpreted restrictively and that the
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Commission may not seek to bring the Fifth SAC within the
 Instance of the European Communities on 19 July by The              EC framework on environmental aid by purporting to
 British Iron and Steel Producers' Association , represented         interpret Article 3 ( 1 ) of the Fifth SAC more broadly .
 by John Boyce and Philip Raven, Solicitors of Slaughter &
 May, London, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
 the Chambers of Wagner & Rukevina, 10a Boulevard de la
 Foire .