CELEX: C1999/188/64
Language: en
Date: 1999-07-03 00:00:00
Title: Case T-72/99: Action brought on 10 March 1999 by Karl L. Meyer against the Commission of the European Communities

3.7.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 188/27
employees of the General Secretariat may be allowed access to            emergency aid on the basis of Articles 147(b) and 164 of
classified information held by the Council (OJ 1998 L 140                Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the associ-
p. 12). The Court (Third Chamber) composed of M. Jaeger,                 ation of the overseas countries and territories with the
President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges, and H. Jung,                European Economic Community. (1)
Registrar, made an order on 22 March 1999, the operative
part of which provides:
                                                                         By letter of 17 February 1999, that request was refused on the
                                                                         ground that, according to the regulations and decisions of the
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                              Council, such aid could not be granted directly to private
                                                                         individuals or private undertakings.
2. The applicant is to be bear the costs.
                                                                         The applicant submits that that decision is incompatible with
(1) OJ 1998 No C 299.                                                    the abovementioned Decision 91/482/EEC and with the
                                                                         Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the
                                                                         Commission of 11 June 1986 against racism and xeno-
                                                                         phobia (2) and does not take into account Article 92(2)(a) of
                                                                         the EC Treaty.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 263,19.9.91, p. 1.
                                                                         (2) OJ C 158, 25.6.86, p. 1.
Action brought on 10 March 1999 by Karl L. Meyer
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-71/99)
                         (1999/C 188/63)
                                                                         Action brought on 10 March 1999 by Karl L. Meyer
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                                   (Case T-72/99)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 March 1999 by Karl L. Meyer,                                           (1999/C 188/64)
of Uturoa, Raiatea, French Polynesia, represented by Jean-
Dominique des Arcis, of the Papeete Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Mr Pakowski,                                    (Language of the case: French)
20-22 Avenue Emile Reuter.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 10 March 1999 by Karl L. Meyer,
— hold that the content of the letter of Directorate-General             of Uturoa, Raiatea, French Polynesia, represented by Jean-
    VIII of 17 February 1999 is incompatible with both the               Dominique des Arcis, of the Papeete Bar, with an address for
    applicable legislation of and fundamental rights in the              service in Luxembourg at the offices of Mr Pakowski, 20-22
    European Union, and order that institution to comply                 Avenue Emile Reuter.
    properly, and without the exercise of discretion, with the
    content and spirit of Council Decision 91/482/EEC of
    25 July 1991 and Article 92(2)(a) of the Treaty of Rome;             The applicant claims that the Court should:
— hold that the European Commission is liable to the                     — hold that the EDF Agency of the Commission is, by its
    applicant for failure to comply with the above-mentioned                 inaction, guilty of a culpable failure to fulfil an obligation,
    European provisions;                                                     compounded by a failure to satisfy a legitimate expectation;
— in addition, order the Commission to pay the applicant the             — hold that the EDF Agency of the Commission failed to
    sum of FRF 20 000 in respect of irrecoverable costs which                fulfil its obligation to ensure the application of the
    he had to incur to protect his interests.                                provisions adopted by it;
                                                                         — find that the applicant has suffered damage in the sum of
                                                                             FRF 181 518, and order that the said sum, due as of 1992,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              be paid together with interest on account of delay;
The applicant, who is the owner of a plantation in French                — in addition, order the Commission to pay the applicant the
Polynesia, states that, following a series of natural disasters, he          sum of FRF 20 000 in respect of irrecoverable costs which
applied to the Commission’s Directorate-General VIII for                     he had to incur to protect his interests.
 ---pagebreak--- C 188/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3.7.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, who is the owner of a plantation in French                The applicant had asked for part of her salary to be transferred
Polynesia, states that he participated in a project for the              to the Menton (France) branch of the Banca SanPaolo, and
planting of tropical fruit trees on the Island of Raiatea which,         with her request attached a declaration that she had opened a
in accordance with promises given during a meeting of the                savings account designated ‘Home savings plan’ for the
farmers of Ile-sous-le-Vent in October 1991, was to be                   purpose of acquiring immovable property in France.
subsidised by the European Development Fund (EDF). The
funds assigned to that project were paid over, but were
                                                                         The applicant contests the condition stipulated by the Com-
apparently misapplied by the Government of French Polynesia,
                                                                         mission on the basis of Article 4 of its internal directive of
which was subsequently obliged to repay the money it had
                                                                         30 July 1993 (I.A. No 815 of 11 August 1993) to the effect
used improperly.
                                                                         that the transfer of the above sum is contingent upon the issue
                                                                         of an undertaking by the Banca SanPaolo, Menton, that it will
The applicant maintains that the fact that the EDF delegation            inform the Commission of all movements of funds made by
proposed the said project to the farmers of Raiatea and Tahaa            the applicant so that their whereabouts can be monitored.
gave them a legitimate expectation that the subsidy would be
paid to them. In accordance with Article 155 of the EC Treaty,
the Commission was under a duty to ensure that the funds                 In support of her claims, the applicant argues that the
assigned to the project were in fact paid to the farmers who             Commission has infringed and misapplied Article 17(2)(b) of
had, for their part, complied with the agreement.                        Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
The applicant concludes from the foregoing that there is a               On that point, the applicant maintains that the purpose of
direct link between the undertaking given by the EDF and the             that provision is to enable an official who has financial
harm he suffered, which is in the amount of the promised                 responsibilities in a country other than his place of employ-
subsidy.                                                                 ment to have part of his disposable income transferred in the
                                                                         currency of that country in order to meet regular and certified
                                                                         expenses. It would therefore be unjustified to make the transfer
                                                                         of funds contingent upon the issue of a declaration such as
                                                                         that sought by the Commission. Also, the Commission’s
                                                                         request is in contravention of the general rules governing bank
                                                                         secrecy and the protection of privacy, both at the European
Action brought on 19 April 1999 by Beatrice Bonaiti                      level and in France. According to the applicant, it is difficult to
Brighina against the Commission of the European Com-                     imagine what information the banks are under a duty to
                            munities                                     protect, if not the details of clients’ transactions.
                         (Case T-93/99)
                        (1999/C 188/65)
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         Action brought on 16 April 1999 by S.A. Satellimages TV5
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 April 1999 by Beatrice Bonaiti                                          (Case T-95/99)
Brighina, represented by Mirco Rizzoglio and Franco Colussi,
of the Milan and Luxembourg Bars, with an address for service                                    (1999/C 188/66)
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Franco Colussi, 36 Rue De
Wiltz.
                                                                                           (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— annul the internal Commission directive of 30 July 1993                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    (published in I.A No 815 of 11 August 1993), and the                 European Communities on 16 April 1999 by S.A. Satellimages
    refusal of 24 June 1998 (Prot. No 563 IX.B.4 VT/D(98)) of            TV5, represented by Eduard Marissens, with an address for
    Directorate General IX (Personnel and Adrninistration) and           service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong, 14
    the measure rejecting the complaint (Prot. No 3964 of                rue des Bains.
    22 Decernber 1998) concerning the transfer of FF 7 600
    per month, being part of the applicant’s salary, to her
    account designated ‘Home savings plan’ at the Menton                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
    branch of the Banca San Paolo;
                                                                         — declare annulled and void the decision, adopted by the
— in any event, award damages to be specified in the course                  defendant and contained in its letter of 15 February 1999
    of the proceedings;                                                      to the applicant, to reject the latter’s formal complaint of
                                                                             18 March 1998;
— order the Commission to pay all expenses and fees
    occasioned by the proceedings.                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs.