CELEX: C1997/009/37
Language: en
Date: 1997-01-11 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 27 November 1996 by Mireille Meskens against the European Parliament (Case T-194/96)

No C 9/20          I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11 . 1 . 97
and, secondly, by failing to take all due care or make                   levy due from the applicant or from the partnership of
every effort to be in a position to put forward a proposal               which he formed part, as the case may be, in respect
to the Council concerning the fixing of new weightings for               of the milk produced by them following the expiry of
Zaire for the periods from July 1993 to August 1996 .                    the non-marketing undertaking ( i.e. production in the
                                                                         milk marketing years 1989/1990 to 1995/ 1996
Lastly, the applicant maintains that, in his regard, the                 inclusive ), together with the interest which is due on
Commission acted contrary to the principles of non­                      that sum to those entitled to claim payment of the said
discrimination against the applicant and treated him less                supplementary levy from the applicant (5 % as from
favourably than officials in other countries who benefited               1 . September 1996 ),
from weightings in excess of 100 and part of whose
salaries, over the same period, were subject to the                 — order the Community to pay him the sum of
appropriate weightings . Although the data for the period                HF1 58 695 (the sum resulting from the application of
from July 1993 to August 1996 were not entirely reliable                 Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 over the periods
on account of the looting in Kinshasa , that situation could             following the expiry of the non-marketing
in no circumstances justify discarding the weighting factor              undertaking, during which the applicant or his
indicating that the cost of living over the preceding                    predecessor in title, as the case may be, produced no
months had been more than twice the reference level . For                milk, together with compensatory interest from the
Russia, owing to the same problems in relation to local                  date when the damage arose until the date of
currency, with effect from 1 January 1994 a weighting                    judgment in the Mulder II case ( 19 May 1992 )), with
was fixed on the basis of an economic parity expressed in                interest thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum until
US dollars .                                                             settlement in full, as laid down in the judgment in
                                                                         Mulder II,
                                                                    — order the Community to pay him the sum of
                                                                         HFl 180 322,20, representing the costs of obtaining a
                                                                         substitute reference quantity equal to the reference
Action brought on 11 November 1996 by J. Antonissen                      quantity to which the applicant would have been
against the European Community, represented by the                       entitled pursuant to Article 3a of Regulation ( EEC )
Council and the Commission of the European                               No 857/84 had he, at the time, been operating the
                          Communities                                    holding in respect of which the non-marketing
                       ( Case T-179/96 )                                 undertaking was given by Mr Herbrink in 1979,
                           ( 97/C 9/36 )
                                                                    — order the Community to pay the costs .
               (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the European Community, represented
by the Council and the Commission of the European                   These proceedings are connected with Case C-98/91
Communities, was brought before the Court of First                  Herbrink ( judgment of the Court of 27 January 1994 ).
Instance of the European Communities on 11 November                 The applicant is the successor of Mr Herbrink. Following
1996 by J. Antonissen, residing at Giethem ( the                    the judgment of the Court, Mr Herbrink was definitively
Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of           refused the allocation of a SLOM quota, on the ground
the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in                   that he no longer operated the original SLOM holding;
Luxemburg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 avenue                  the lease in respect of it was not extended, since he was
Guillaume .                                                         not in possession of a milk quota .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare that the Community is obliged to make good
    the damage which the applicant has suffered, and may
    suffer in the future, as a result of the refusal to             Action brought on 27 November 1996 by Mireille
    allocate a specific reference quantity to the applicant                   Meskens against the European Parliament
    or his predecessor in title, Mr A. A. Herbrink, since                                    Case T- 194/96 )
    the termination on 17 May 1984 of the non-marketing
    undertaking given by Mr Herbrink pursuant to                                               ( 97/C 9/37 )
    Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1087/77, on the sole
    ground that, since 1987, for reasons which cannot be                             (Language of the case: French)
    attributed to them, neither the applicant nor Mr
    Herbrink has continued to operate, either wholly or in          An action against the European Parliament was brought
    part, the holding on which Mr Herbrink produced                 before the Court of First Instance of the European
    milk prior to giving the aforementioned non-marketing           Communities on 27 November 1996 by Mireille Meskens,
    undertaking,                                                    residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis,
                                                                    Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , all of the Brussels
— order the Community to pay him the sum of                         Bar, with an address for service in Luxemburg at the
    HFl 258 565,38 , corresponding to the supplementary             offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL ., 30 rue de Cessange.
 ---pagebreak---  11 . 1 . 97         I EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 9 /21
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           The applicant states that, following those judgments, she
                                                                      took several steps to obtain the adoption of appropriate
— annul the decision of the European Parliament                       measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of
      rejecting the applicant's request of 2 October 1995             First Instance of 8 November 1990, but that all those
      that it take appropriate measures to comply with the            steps were in vain .
      judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 November
      1990 in Case T-56/89,                                          In compliance with the judgment of 8 November 1990,
                                                                     the Parliament paid the applicant Bfrs 50 000 . The
— order the European Parliament to pay her
      Bfrs 1 000 000 in compensation for the material and
                                                                     applicant maintains, however, that, since that judgment
      non-material damage suffered by her,
                                                                     and the judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 August
                                                                      1994, the Parliament has not taken appropriate
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs .                   compliance measures . The unlawfulness found by the
                                                                     Court of First Instance therefore continues to produce its
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  effects, despite the judgment of annulment.
By judgment of 8 November 1990 ('), the Court of First               The applicant maintains that she has thus been kept in a
Instance annulled the decision of the European Parliament            state of uncertainty regarding her professional future for
to reject the application of the applicant and others for            more than five years, and that such a situation constitutes
Internal Competition B/164 . By judgment of 8 October                maladministration for which the Parliament is liable .
1992 ( 2 ), the Court of First Instance held the Parliament's
decision not to take any specific measure vis-a-vis the              (') Case T-56/89 Bataille and Others v. Parliament [ 1990 ] ECR II­
applicant to comply with that judgment unlawful . The                      597 .
Parliament's appeal against that latter judgment was                 ( 2 ) Case T-84/91 Meskens v. Parliament [ 1992] ECR 11-2335 .
dismissed by the Court of Justice ( 3 ).                             ( 3 ) Case C-412/92 P Parliament v. Meskens [ 1994] ECR 1-3757.