CELEX: C2002/003/78
Language: en
Date: 2002-01-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-273/01: Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Innova Privat-Akademie GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

5.1.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 3/45
—     infringes Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Annex VII to the Staff            Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Innova Privat-
      Regulations, Opinion No 178/87 of the board of the                 Akademie GmbH against the Commission of the European
      heads of administration of 3 December 1987 and                                               Communities
      Articles 3(4) and 4 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC)
      No 260/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying                                         (Case T-273/01)
      down the conditions and procedure for applying the
      tax for the benefit of the European Communities, as
      interpreted by the Court of Justice, inasmuch as the                                         (2002/C 3/78)
      applicant actually maintains his children and is entitled
      to have benefits, which are paid to his wife in the name                              (Language of the case: German)
      and on behalf of both parents, taken into account when
      calculating tax and calculating the expatriation allowance.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 22 October 2001 by Innova Privat-
                                                                         Akademie GmbH, Berlin, represented by Thomas Kreutzfield,
                                                                         lawyer.
Action brought on 15 October 2001 by Philip Morris
International Inc. against the Commission of the European                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           Communities
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant
                                                                               Euro 104 790 together with interest of 5 % above
                         (Case T-272/01)                                       the basic rate under paragraph 1 of the Diskontsatz-
                                                                               Überleitungs-Gesetz of 9.6.1998 of the Federal Republic
                           (2002/C 3/77)                                       of Germany from the date on which the proceedings
                                                                               became pending;
                   (Language of the case: English)                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Pleas in law and main arguments
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 October 2001 by Philip Morris
International Inc., represented by Mr Jacques Derenne and                The applicant applied via a German bank for promotional
Mr Eric Morgan de Rivery of Liederkerke Siméon Wessing                   funds from the European Commission in order to finance a
Houthoff, Brussels (Belgium).                                            project within the framework of the EU ECIP promotional
                                                                         programme. The subject matter of the applicant’s project was
                                                                         a feasibility study on a joint venture in the area of professional
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              training in India.
—     annul the Contested Act resulting in the filing of the
                                                                         In March 1999 the bank informed the applicant that the
      Complaint on 6 August 2001 before the New York
                                                                         application had been approved with a subsidy of
      District Court against the applicant, as publicly
                                                                         Euro 115 328. The Commission had given that information
      announced by the Commission in Press Release
                                                                         to the bank infomally by telephone. However, the applicant
      IP/01/1193 of 6 August 2001;
                                                                         subsequently received no further information from the Com-
                                                                         mission.
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                         In 2000 the ECIP project was halted on account of the
                                                                         irregularities within the Commission which had come to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          light in 1999. Despite the above-mentioned agreement, the
                                                                         applicant received no funds from the ECIP project.
The applicant in the present case is the same undertaking as in
case T-377/00 (1). The facts, grounds and main arguments are             The applicant, which, in reliance on the promotion of the
similar to those arising in this case.                                   project, had concluded a contract with a consultancy firm with
                                                                         respect to the feasibility study, claims damages for the loss
                                                                         which it has allegedly incurred and claims that the failure to
(1) Philip Morris International/Commission (OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001,        pay the promotional funds is unlawful and caused the loss
    p. 23).                                                              suffered by it.