CELEX: C2003/184/102
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-190/03: Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Sanni Olesen against the Commission of the European Communities

2.8.2003                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 184/47
—     The contested decision does not take account of the fact                 Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Sanni Olesen against
      that, in the years concerned, in the public utilities sector                    the Commission of the European Communities
      there were a number of de jure and de facto monopolies
      such as to exclude a market open to competition. The
      Commission merely assumed, without putting forward                                                (Case T-190/03)
      any evidence, the presence of an open competitive
      market. In that regard, the Court should find that the
      Commission has failed to provide adequate reasons inas-                                          (2003/C 184/102)
      much as it has found competition to have been infringed
      on a single ground: the alleged damage suffered by those
      undertakings which are not beneficiaries of the measures                                    (Language of the Case: French)
      provided for by the legislation in question in the event
      that they should compete with the beneficiary undertak-
      ings for the same contracts.
                                                                               An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                               nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                               European Communities on 21 May 2003 by Sanni Olesen,
                                                                               resident in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
—     Since the inquiry was opened only in so far as concerned                 Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
      exclusively the local public utilities market where it was               address for service in Luxembourg.
      assumed that there was open competition, the final deci-
      sion could not assess the impact of the measures on
      other markets which were not concerned by the decision
                                                                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      to initiate the procedure. Finally, the measures in question
      cannot be deemed incompatible with the common market
      in so far as those undertakings could, in theory, have                   —     annul the Commission's decision of 19 April 2002 not to
      operated in a market other than that of local public                           grant her an expatriation allowance from her entry into
      utilities, which is the only one under formal investigation.                   service on 3 March 2002;
                                                                               —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     The provision which limits the ‘tax moratorium’ to only
      three years does not introduce any new State aid, rather it
      merely amends a tax regime which has been applicable to
      a defined category of taxpayer since 1925.
                                                                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               The applicant in this case, a Grade A official with the
—     Should the Court find that this is a case of State aid, it               Commission, opposes the Commission's decision not to grant
      should, pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, be                   her an expatriation allowance because she worked in Belgium
      declared compatible with the common market inasmuch                      from 15 June 1995. Since that date she has lived in Belgium
      as the measures are inherent in the nature and/or general                and has had her main occupation there, as a freelance lecturer
      structure of the system in question. Indeed, a change in                 for the Commission's Directorate-General for Education and
      the general system of local public utilities could not have              Culture and as representative in Brussels of the town of
      been successfully carried out if the undertakings which                  Odense (ODENSE KOMMUNE — Denmark).
      had to become companies with a majority public share-
      holding had not been afforded the chance to become
      gradually acquainted with the mechanisms which govern
                                                                               In support of her claims, the applicant pleads breach of
      private law.
                                                                               Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. She
                                                                               submits in this connection that:
                                                                               —     the status of freelance lecturer, characterised by a direct
In its application, the applicant also alleges infringement of                       legal link between her and the institution, corresponds to
Article 86(2) of the Treaty inasmuch as it was held in the                           a situation arising from work done for an international
decision that that provision did not apply to the measures in                        organisation;
question.
                                                                               —     under their charters of autonomy, Danish towns may
 1
( ) Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid                      open representations abroad and consequently the appli-
    granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans              cant's occupation as representative of the town of Odense
    to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003              must be regarded as ‘work done for another State’,
    L 77, p. 21).                                                                    namely the Kingdom of Denmark.