CELEX: C1996/016/35
Language: en
Date: 1996-01-20 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 31 October 1995 by Giampaolo Cordiale against European Parliament (Case T-205/95)

No C 16/ 16            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20 . 1 . 96
Action brought on 31 October 1995 by Giampaolo                         the European Parliament. That communication was not sent
            Cordiale against European Parliament                       in due time through error or forgetfulness on the part of the
                                                                       official concerned .
                        ( Case T-205/95 )
                           ( 96/C 16/35 )                              The applicant maintains in that regard that it cannot be
                                                                       asserted that his secondment to Rome was a private
                (Language of the case: Italian)                        agreement based on the resolution of 20 October 1988 ,
                                                                       without any financial implications for the Group, when a
                                                                       written, precise and unambiguous undertaking exists,
An action against the European Parliament was brought                  according to which the applicant was to remain within the
before the Court of First Instance of the European                     Community system, whereas the Italian administration was
Communities on 31 October 1995 by Giampaolo Cordiale,                  to make the necessary arrangements regarding the national
formerly a member of the temporary staff of the European               civil servant who was to replace him in Brussels.
Parliament ( ELDR Group ), represented by Jean-Noël Louis,
of the Brussels Bar, and Alberto Panuccio, of the Reggio
Calabria Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener.
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           Action brought on 27 November 1995 by the Flemish
                                                                       Region against the Commission of the European
— declare unfounded and annul the implied rejection of the                                          Communities
    applicant's complaint of 22 March 1995 ,                                                     ( Case T-214/95 )
                                                                                                     96/C 16/36
— declare well-founded and legitimate the applicant's
    request for allowances, the same having been recognized
    in a document emanating from the defendant itself, and                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
    therefore order the defendant to pay the sums due,
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                               Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 27 November
                                                                        1995 by the Flemish Region, represented by A. L. Merckx,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    of the Brussels Bar .
The applicant, a member of the temporary staff seconded to             The applicant claims that the Court should:
the office of the Minister for coordination of Community
policies in Rome, contests the legality of the decision of              1 , annul the Commission Decision of 26 July 1995
9 March 1 995 of the office of the ELDR Group of the                        concerning aid granted by the Flemish Region to the
European Parliament denying him the right to the duty                       Belgian airline Vlaamse Luchttransportmaatschappij
travel allowance ( allowance for staying in Rome, together                  NV;
with travel expenses ) provided for by the decision of the
office of the President of that institution and notified to all        2 , order the Commission to pay the costs.
the members of that office by a circular letter from the
Secretary-General dated 20 October 1988 .                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The contested decision stated that the Personnel Division              — inadequate reasoning in relation to the application of
had never received the relevant documentation from the                      Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty as regards the distortion
Group, including a request for the applicant to be placed at                of competition and the adverse effect on trade between
the disposal of an Italian administrative authority and that,               Member States,
in the absence of any such request, it was impossible to
rectify matters retroactively.                                         — infringement of Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty,
                                                                            inasmuch as the aid measure, which is very limited in its
As a preliminary point, the applicant alleges improper                      scope, does not affect trade between Member States,
conduct on the part of the ELDR which gave rise to
 non-payment of the allowance due to him from the                      — inadequate reasoning in relation to the exemption
 Directorate-General for Personnel . He states in that                      claimed by the applicant with regard to aid measures of
connection that his entitlement to the payment in question                  limited scope in the aviation sector ( OJ No C 350,
 arose when the ELDR agreed to, formalized and made                         p . 5 ),
 arrangements for an exchange between the applicant and
 the Italian official, who in the meantime has replaced him in          — inadequate reasoning in relation to the application of
 Brussels .                                                                 Article 92 ( 3 ) (c ) of the EC Treaty,
 Nothing      more     was     needed,    therefore,   than   the       — infringement of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty.
 communication from the secretariat of the ELDR to the
 Directorate-General for Personnel, Budget and Finance of