CELEX: C1997/318/60
Language: en
Date: 1997-10-18 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 7 August 1997 by Micheline Becret-Danieau and others against the European Parliament (Case T-232/97)

18 . 10 . 97          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 318/31
— pursuant to Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty,                 — the loss due to the lower reference quantity in the
     order the Commission to make good any damage,                        early part of the year, and
     with interest thereon, caused to the applicants by the
     wrongful adoption of Regulation ( EC ) No 1155/97,
                                                                     — the loss caused by the new Member States' arguments.
— make any additional order the Court considers
     necessary for the purposes of determining the damage
     caused to the applicants, and
                                                                     Action brought on 7 August 1997 by Micheline Becret-
                                                                         Danieau and others against the European Parliament
— declare that the Commission pay the costs incurred in
     the making of this application .                                                        ( Case T-232/97 )
                                                                                               ( 97/C 318/60 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                      (Language of the case: French)
The applicants are members of the Dole group of                      An action against the European Parliament was brought
companies, a group engaged in the worldwide business of              before the Court of First Instance of the European
producing, processing, distributing and marketing quality            Communities on 7 August 1997 by Micheline Becret-
branded fruit products, primarily fresh fruit and                    Danieau, residing at Bertrange ( Luxembourg ), Jeremiah
vegetables and packaged fruits and nuts . The applicants             Cadogan, residing at Steinsel ( Luxembourg), Madeleine
are registered as Category A operators, as defined by                Mesenburg, residing at Biwer ( Luxembourg), Rainer
Article 2 ( a ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 1442/93           Moriarty, residing at Colmar-Berg ( Luxembourg), Anne-
of 10 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for the                   Marie Nilles, residing at Mamer ( Luxembourg ), Teresa
application of the arrangements for importing bananas                Rodrigues, residing at Mondercange ( Luxembourg ),
into the Community ( OJ L 142, 12 . 6 . 1993 , p, 6 ).               Fernando Simões, residing at Munsbach ( Luxembourg ),
                                                                     Jean-Louis Spellini , residing at Bascharage ( Luxembourg),
                                                                     Jeanne Pica-Borruto, residing at Thionville ( France ) and
                                                                     Nicole Schulte, residing at Leudelange ( Luxembourg),
The application concerns the administration by the                   represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Veronique Leclercq,
Commission of the rules governing the allocation of the              Ariane Tornel and Framboise Parmentier, of the Brussels
applicants' licence entitlement for the import of bananas            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
within the third-country tariff-rate quota established by            offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
Article 18 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 of
 13 February 1993 . It arises out of the adoption by the
 Commission of an excessively severe reduction coefficient           The applicants claim that the Court should:
 based on an incorrect reference quantity figure which
illegally reduces the applicants' licence entitlement for the        — annul the decisions expressly rejecting their requests
 1997 marketing year.                                                     for reimbursement of the sums wrongly deducted in
                                                                          respect of household grants,
 As a result of the incorrect reference quantities, the
                                                                     — order the defendant to reimburse to them all sums
 applicants were denied their legal right to import bananas
 up to the maximum of their legal entitlement. In addition,               wrongly deducted and to pay interest thereon at the
 the applicants are also denied their future entitlement to                rate of 8 % per annum from the date when each
 import Category A bananas for those marketing years for                   deduction was made until the date of reimbursement,
 which 1997 is a reference year. This erodes and thus
 infringes the applicants' fundamental rights protected by           — order the defendant to pay the costs .
 Community law, such as the right to property and the
 right to pursue a professional or trade activity. Whereas in
 Article 19 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 the Council         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 acted to ensure avoidance of erosion between Categories A
 and B, the Commission has created a system which allows              The applicants, officials of the European Parliament
 erosion of rights within each category. The loss which will          whose spouses receive a household grant, state that up
 be suffered by the applicants as a result of the                     until July 1996 the defendant deducted, pursuant to
 Commission's breach of a superior rule of law arises from:           Article 67 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations of officials, the
                                                                      household grant received by their spouses from the family
                                                                      allowances to which they were entitled. In July 1996 they
 — the fact that the share of the Category A quota                    were informed that, in consequence of the judgment
      allocated to the applicants is less than it would have          delivered by the Court of First Instance on 11 June 1996
      been had the Commission calculated the reduction                in Case T-147/95 Pavan v. Parliament, and having
      coefficient using correct reference quantity figures.           considered the conditions governing the award of the
 ---pagebreak--- C 318/32                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  18 . 10 . 97
grant in question, the administration had concluded that                taken into account for the transfer of pension rights
the grant could no longer be regarded as an allowance of                should be calculated for each transfer separately. In its
like nature to the household allowance provided for in                  submission, the conversion calculations used by the
Article 1 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and that it             applicant would result in a number of years of
had therefore been decided that it would no longer deduct               pensionable service greater than the number of years in
that grant from the household allowance paid to the                     which the applicant was affiliated to the Danish pension
applicants . The applicants thereupon requested retroactive             funds in question.
reimbursement of all of the sums deducted together with
default interest. Those requests were rejected by the                   The applicant considers in that respect that the wording of
defendant .
                                                                        Article 11 ( 2 ) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations is
                                                                        perfectly clear, in that it concerns retirement pension rights
The pleas in law and main arguments advanced by the                     acquired through the pursuit by an official of an activity
applicants against those rejection decisions are the same as            in an employed or self-employed capacity before he took
those in Case T-181 /97 (').                                            up his duties. The 'period' of prior service is thus credited
                                                                        and taken into account in calculating the retirement
(') Case T-181 /97 Meyer and Others v. Court of Justice ( OJ            pension provided for in the Staff Regulations. It follows,
    C 252 , 16 . 8 . 1997, p. 35 ).                                     in his submission, that both the wording and the rationale
                                                                        of the Staff Regulations require the Community institution
                                                                        to take into account the whole of the rights acquired by
                                                                        the official concerned before he took up his duties.
                                                                        What is to be taken into account in that respect is, he
Action brought on 8 August 1997 by Folmer Bang­                         argues, the retirement pension rights acquired by reason of
                                                                        those activities, whether or not those activities were on an
      Hansen against the Commission of the European
                              Communities                               employed basis. The Commission should therefore have
                                                                        taken into account all contributions giving rise to pension
                           ( Case T-233/97 )                            rights, the essential point being to define the rights to
                             ( 97/C 318/61 )                            which those contributions gave rise . It is those rights, the
                                                                        applicant argues, and not, in themselves, the contributions
                                                                        and the funds to which they are paid, which underlie the
                   (Language of the case: French)                       letter and the spirit of the provision of the Staff
                                                                        Regulations cited above .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       There is therefore nothing to prevent the transfer amounts
Instance of the European Communities on 8 August 1997                   in question — even though emanating from two different
by Folmer Bang-Hansen, residing in Overijse ( Belgium ),                funds, each establishing as far as it is concerned the
represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an              amount of the actuarial equivalent — from being added
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                    together in order to determine the number of years of
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.                                pensionable service to be taken into account and the
                                                                        resulting credit. In the applicant's submission, it is only
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the aggregation of rights which corresponds to the
                                                                        intention of the Community legislature, since it is the
                                                                        whole of those rights which he has acquired by way of
— annul the decision of 16 October 1996 ( Reference                     retirement pension.
     IX.B.6/LAD ) ( 96 ) 14687), signed by E. Tserepa ( Head
     of the Transfers Sector ), whereby the Commission
     decided that the limitation of the period to be taken              The applicant ends by arguing that any general provision
     into account for a transfer of pension rights was to be            for implementing the rules in the Staff Regulations
     calculated separately for each transfer, and therefore             which supports the interpretation put forward by the
     refused the applicant's request to aggregate transfers             Commission should be regarded as unlawful .
     from Andelspensionsforeningen and Juristernes Pen­
     sionskasse,
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                        Action brought on 6 August 1997 by Franco Campoli
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                 Case T-235/97
The applicant complains of the Commission's refusal to                                           ( 97/C 318/62 )
 aggregate transfers emanating from two Danish pension
 funds to which he had successively contributed before he
took up his duties with the Commission, for the purposes                                (Language of the case: Italian)
 of calculating the period to be taken into account on a
transfer of pension rights. The Commission justified its                An action against the Commission of the European
refusal on the basis that the limitation of the period to be             Communities was brought before the Court of First