CELEX: C1999/226/56
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-107/99: Action brought on 30 April 1999 by Maria Soledad Garcia Retortillo against the Council of the European Union

7.8.1999               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 226/31
Action brought on 30 April 1999 by Karl L. Meyer against                Action brought on 30 April 1999 by Maria Soledad Garcia
         Commission of the European Communities                            Retortillo against the Council of the European Union
                        (Case T-106/99)                                                          (Case T-107/99)
                        (1999/C 226/55)                                                          (1999/C 226/56)
                  (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               An action against the Council of the European Union was
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities on 30 April 1999 by Karl L. Meyer,                 Communities on 30 April 1999 by Maria Soledad Garcia
residing at Uturoa, Raiatea (French Polynesia), represented by          Retortillo, residing in Spain, represented by Jean-Noël Louis,
Jean-Dominique des Arcis, of the Papeete Bar, with an address           Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar,
for service in Luxembourg at the address of Mr Pakowski,                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
20-22 Avenue Emile Reuter.                                              Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul the decision to exclude the applicant from the scope
— hold that Directorate-General VIII of the Commission                       of the detailer arrangements for the integration of the
    infringed several provision on the transparency of acts of               Schengen Secretariat into the Genera Secretariat of the
    the European Economic Community;                                         Council;
— in addition, order the Commission to pay to the applicant             — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decisions of the
    the sum of FRF 20 000 ( in respect of irrecoverable                      appointing authority to appoint ‘en bloc’ as officials of the
    expenses incurred by him in protecting his interests.                    European Communities only those persons who were
                                                                             agents of the Schengen Secretariat on 2 October 1997,
                                                                             and to integrate them into its services;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant challenges the Commission’s refusal to send him
certain information, in particular the rates of interest on the
risk capital made available to French Polynesia from 1986 to            Pleas in law and main arguments
1989 and from 1995 to 1998 under the Council decisions
relating to the association of the PTOM to the EEC of 16                The Treaty of Amsterdam provides, by means of the Protocol
December 1990, 30 June 1986, 25 July 1991 and 24                        integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the
November 1997.                                                          European Union, for the Schengen Secretariat to be integrated
                                                                        into the General Secretariat of the Council.
In support of his claims the applicant alleges that the
Commission:                                                             The applicant, who was employed in the Schengen Secretariat
                                                                        as a translator from 1 January 1993 to 30 September 1994, is
— failed to fulfil its obligation to provide reasons for its acts;      currently working as a freelance translator. Since the appoint-
                                                                        ing authority has not requested her to undergo a pre-
— breached of the Code of Conduct enshrined in 97/730/EC                appointment medical examination or to provide documenta-
    on public access to Council and Commission documents;               tion proving that she fulfils the conditions referred to in Article
                                                                        28 of the Staff Regulations, she regards herself as having
                                                                        been definitively eliminated from the scope of the detailed
— disregarded the Commission Communication of 5 May                     arrangements for the integration of the Schengen Secretariat
    1993 on public access to Community institution docu-                into the General Secretariat of the Council.
    ments;
— infringed the decision of the Council of 20 December                  According to the applicant, Article 5 of the decision of the
    1993 relating to public access to Council documents; and            Council of 30 April 1999 states that it is to enter into force on
                                                                        the date of its adoption and is to take effect on the date of the
                                                                        entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam. It follows that
— infringed Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom
                                                                        the contested decision of the Council has been adopted on the
    of 8 February 1994 on public access to Commission
                                                                        basis of the provisions of a Treaty which has not yet entered
    documents.
                                                                        into force. The illegality vitiating the Council’s decision affects
                                                                        all the decisions adopted pursuant thereto and, in particular,
                                                                        the decisions of the appointing authority concerning the
                                                                        appointment of agents of the Schengen Secretariat.
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/32               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.8.1999
In support of her claim, the applicant pleads:                          Pleas in law and main arguments
— infringement of Articles 4, 27, 28 and 29 of the Staff                By court decision dated 24 December 1991, the Tribunal de
    Regulations and of Annex III thereto;                               Première Instance (Court of First Instance), Brussels, awarded
                                                                        custody of the daughter of the applicant, an official of the
                                                                        European Parliament, to her former husband and ordered
— infringement of Article 7 of the Protocol (No 2) annexed              the applicant to pay, with effect from 29 January 1990,
    to the Treaty of Amsterdam;                                         8 000 Belgian francs per month by way of contribution to the
                                                                        maintenance of the child, in addition to the amount of the
— breach of the principle of equal treatment and of non-                extended family allowances paid by the European Communi-
    discrimination;                                                     ties.
                                                                        By decision of 15 December 1997, the Juvenile Court of the
— infringement of the second paragraph of Article 24(1) of              Abruzzi awarded custody of the applicant’s daughter to her
    the Merger Treaty;                                                  uncle and aunt with effect from 29 August 1997.
— infringement of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations; and              By letter of 1 April 1998, the European Parliament informed
                                                                        the applicant, inter alia, that payment of the family allowances
— misuse of powers and abuse of procedure.                              to the girl’s uncle and aunt could not commence until the first
                                                                        day of the month following the court decision of 15 December
                                                                        1997, that is to say, 1 January 1998.
                                                                        By its contested decision, the European Parliament refused to
                                                                        pay the family allowances in respect of the girl to her uncle
                                                                        and aunt for the period from 29 August 1997 up to and
                                                                        including 31 December 1997; in its view, the date to be taken
                                                                        into account for the purposes of the payment of family
                                                                        allowances to a third person is the date of delivery of the court
Action brought on 3 May 1999 by Gemma Reggimenti                        decision.
              against the European Parliament
                                                                        The applicant maintains that that decision was adopted in
                                                                        breach of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Annex VII to the Staff
                        (Case T-108/99)                                 Regulations. In accordance with those articles, the point in
                                                                        time which is to be taken into consideration for the purposes
                                                                        of payment of the allowances to a third person is the date on
                        (1999/C 226/57)                                 which the child is effectively entrusted to the care of that
                                                                        person by the court decision, even where the decision itself is
                                                                        not delivered until months or even years later. Moreover, it
                  (Language of the case: French)                        must be borne in mind that decision made in family law cases
                                                                        almost always have retroactive effect.
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of Firs Instance of the European Communities on
3 May 1999 by Gemma Reggimenti, residing in Brussels,
represented by Claudine Junion, lawyer, Brussels, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christine          Action brought on 3 May 1999 by Josée Bollendorff
Nabozny, 3 Rue Mathias Tresch.                                                         against the European Parliament
                                                                                                 (Case T-110/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                 (1999/C 226/58)
— annul the decision adopted by the European Parliament on
    18 June 1998 in so far as it refuses the payment to Mr and                             (Language of the case: French)
    Mrs Reggimenti of family allowances for the period from
    29 August 1997 to 31 December 1997;                                 An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 3
— annul the decision of 1 February 1999 rejecting the                   May 1999 by Josée Bollendorff, residing in Luxembourg,
    complaint as unfounded;                                             represented by Laurent Mosar, of the Luxembourg Bar, with
                                                                        an address for service at his Chambers, 8 Rue Notre-Dame,
— order the European Parliament to comply with the judg-                Luxembourg.
    ment to be delivered, by paying to Mr and Mrs Reggimenti
    family allowances for the period from 29 August 1997 to             The applicant claims that the Court should:
    31 December 1997, plus default interest at the rate                 — annul the decision by which the appointing authority took
    prescribed by law:                                                       the view that the applicant’s absence from 3 September to
                                                                             15 September 1998 was irregular and deducted 68.50
— order the European Parliament to pay the cost.                             working hours from her annual leave entitlement;