CELEX: C1997/318/53
Language: en
Date: 1997-10-18 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 30 July 1997 by R. Kooyman against the European Parliament (Case T-223/97)

C 318/26               EN ]                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18 . 10 . 97
— in the alternative, declare the applicant entitled to the             Staff Regulations, which is a clear provision requiring no
     remission of those duties;                                         clarification .
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                In adopting the contested decision, the appointing
                                                                        authority applied criteria for granting leave which remain
                                                                        shrouded in mystery, the legal justification of which has
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     not been explained . In so doing, it also infringed Article 25
                                                                        of the Staff Regulations .
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
in Case T-2 16/97 (').
(') See page 24 of this Official Journal.
                                                                        Action brought on 30 July 1997 by Alfons Steffens against
                                                                        the Council of the European Union and the Commission
                                                                                         of the European Communities
                                                                                                (Case T-222/97)
                                                                                                  ( 97/C 318/52 )
Action brought on 25 July 1997 by Anita Brems against
              the Council of the European Union                                         (Language of the case: German)
                         ( Case T-219/97)
                           ( 97/C 318/51 )                              An action against the Council of the European Union
                                                                        and the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                 (Language of the case: French)                         Communities on 30 July 1997 by Alfons Steffens,
                                                                        of Aschendorf/Moor ( Federal Republic of Germany),
                                                                        represented by Burkhard Josef Remmers, Rechtsanwalt,
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 Papenburg ( Germany ), with an address for service in
brought before the Court of First Instance on 25 July                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Turk & Prum, 13a
1997 by Anita Brems, resident in Relegem ( Belgium ),                   Avenue Guillaume .
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson                 The applicant claims that the Court should order the
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                              defendants to pay to the applicant damages amounting to
                                                                        DM 69 503,40, together with 8 % interest from 1 October
                                                                        1993 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— annul the Council's decisions refusing to allow her the
     entire period from 24 May to 8 June 1996 as sick­                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
     leave,                                                             those in the other milk quota cases.
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Action brought on 30 July 1997 by R. Kooyman against
                                                                                            the European Parliament
The application challenges the legality of the refusal to                                       ( Case T-223/97)
allow as sick-leave the entire period of the applicant's
absence from 24 May to 8 June 1996 .                                                              ( 97/C 318/53 )
                                                                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
According to the applicant, in refusing her sick-leave
covering her entire absence, the appointing authority
breached the principles set out in Article 59 of the Staff              An action against the European Parliament was brought
Regulations as clarified in the case-law of the Court of                before the Court of First Instance of the European
Justice and the Court of First Instance .                               Communities on 30 July 1997 by R. Kooyman, a freelance
                                                                        interpreter, resident at Zurich ( Switzerland ), represented
                                                                        by G. Van der Wal, a Member of the Orde van Advocaten
The    conclusion     of    the   heads   of  administration   of       at the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme
1 February 1996 concerning grant of the second half of                  Court), Barents & Krans Advocaten Notarissen, Brussels,
special leave for a thermal cure is illegal, inasmuch as it             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
has the effect of restricting the scope of Article 59 of the            Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-rue .
 ---pagebreak--- 18 . 10 . 97          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 318/27
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              there is no valid legal basis for imposing Community
                                                                         tax. As a result, there is a duty to repay the amounts
                                                                         unduly paid. The defendant has acted contrary to
— annul or at least declare invalid the decision contained               Community law, in particular the Protocol on
     in the defendant's letter of 30 April 1997 refusing to              Privileges and Immunities, legislation implementing
     repay the Community tax which the applicant has                     that Protocol and Article 212 of the EC Treaty
     paid since 1989,                                                    by deciding to withhold Community tax from the
                                                                         earnings of freelance interpreters, such as the
                                                                         applicant, working for it;
— declare that there is no valid legal basis for imposing
     Community tax in the case of the applicant, who
     works for the defendant as a freelance interpreter, and        3 . the decision, irrespective of its form, by which the
     that the withholding of Community tax from his                      Parliament laid down that freelance interpreters should
     earnings is invalid and unlawful,                                   be charged Community tax is invalid for want of a
                                                                         valid legal basis. In so far as that decision purports to
                                                                         be the basis for charging Community tax on the
— in so far as is necessary, declare invalid the European                applicant's earnings and for refusing to repay him the
     Parliament's decision subjecting the earnings of                    tax, the applicant asks the Court to declare that
                                                                         decision invalid or at least to declare that no reliance
     freelance interpreters to Community tax and Article 8
     of the Agreement with the AIIC,                                     can be placed in it vis-a-vis the applicant ( objection of
                                                                         illegality, Article 184 of the EC Treaty );
— order that the Community tax paid by the applicant                4. Article 8 of the Agreement with the AIIC, which forms
     since 1 January 1989 be repaid together with interest               an integral part of the agreements concluded by the
     at 8 % or at the applicable legal rate,                             applicant with the defendant, is void or at least
                                                                         invalid . Hence the Court should declare that no
                                                                         reliance can be placed in it vis-a-vis the applicant since
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                 it lacks any legal basis;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 5 . Article 8 and the procedure for repayment contained
                                                                         in Article 8 ( 3 ) of the Agreement with the AIIC, as
                                                                         introduced as from 1984, are also in breach of the
The case is concerned with the imposition of Community                   principles of proportionality and equal treatment.
tax on the earnings of freelance interpreters from their
work for Community institutions, more specifically the
work performed by the applicant for the European
Parliament.
Since the applicant — a Netherlands national — is                   Action brough on 29 July 1997 by Isabel Martinez del
resident in Switzerland, all his earnings are subject to            Peral Cagigal against the Commission of the European
Swiss income tax. Since 1984 Community tax has been                                             Communities
withheld from his earnings as a freelance interpreter of the                                 ( Case T-224/97)
European Parliament, resulting in that income being
subject to double taxation .                                                                   ( 97/C 318/54 )
The defendant's decision contained in the letter of 30 April                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
 1997 refusing to grant the applicant's claim to repayment
of Community tax since 1989 and maintaining the
imposition of Community tax in future should be annulled
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
or at least declared invalid on the following grounds :
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 29 July 1997
                                                                    by Isabel Martinez del Peral Cagigal, residing at Brussels,
                                                                    represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and Alex
 1 . the defendant's reliance on Council Regulation ( EEC )          Subirachs Amigo, both of the Barcelona Bar, with an
      No 260/68 and on the Protocol on Privileges and               address for service at 78 Avenue d'Audeghem, 1040
      Immunities is to no avail, since the applicant is not an      Brussels .
      official or other servant of the • Community and,
      accordingly, reference thereto cannot serve as the basis
      for refusing repayment;                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
2 . the defendant's refusal to repay the Community tax               1 . annul the Commission's decision refusing to reclassify
      paid by the applicant since 1989 is unlawful since                  the applicant in another step;