CELEX: C1997/252/77
Language: en
Date: 1997-08-16 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 17 June 1997 by Huguette Meyer and others against the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Case T-181/97)

16 . 8 . 97          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 252/35
First, the applicant alleges misuse of powers and abuse of           He pleads infringement of Article 23 of the Rules of
process, because the series of employment contracts or of            Procedure of the Commission of 17 February 1993 , since
contracts for the supply of services concluded with a series         he was automatically entitled and required to deputize for
of companies is unlawful, inasmuch as the contractual                his hierarchical superior during the latter's absences, in
terms were defined, not according to the needs of the                particular on 16 and 20 August 1996 . According to the
service, but with the sole aim of evading the application of         applicant, the contested decision was therefore adopted
the provisions of the Staff Regulations or other rules.              wilfully and in disregard of the steps taken by the
Those contracts must be regarded as concluded with an                applicant to ensure that his rights were respected.
agent covered by the Staff Regulations and/or the                    Moreover, such conduct represents a flagrant breach of
Conditions of Employment of Other Servants.                          the Commission's duty to have regard for his interests as
                                                                     one of its officials .
The second plea alleges breach of the duty to have regard
for the welfare and interests of officials, the duty to              His second plea alleges infringement of Article 25 of the
provide assistance and breach of the principle of                    Staff Regulation, on the ground that the Commission
protection of legitimate expectations, and also                      failed to provide a reasoned statement informing the
infringement of Article 3 of the European Convention on              applicant of the factors on the basis of which the merits of
                                                                     the contested decision could be assessed .
Human Rights, inasmuch as the Commission failed to
take action when the applicant requested its help .
                                                                     As regards the claim for compensation, the applicant
                                                                     maintains that he has suffered non-material damage, since
Last, the applicant assesses her non-material damage                 for nearly two years he has been in a state of uncertainty
caused by those infringements and failures at the symbolic           as to the future of his career.
sum of ECU 1 .
                                                                     Action brought on 17 June 1997 by Huguette Meyer and
Action brought on 11 June 1997 by Albano Moncada                     others against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                               Communities
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                            ( Case T-181/97)
                       ( Case T-l 78/97 )
                                                                                              ( 97/C 252/77 )
                         ( 97/C 252/76 )
                                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     An action against the Court of Justice of the European
An action against the Commission of the European                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 1997
Instance of the European Communities on 11 June 1997                 by Huguette Meyer, residing at Mamer ( Luxembourg ),
by Albano Moncada, residing in Luxembourg, represented               Ines Bruno, residing in Luxembourg, Alba Muller di
by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane                     Leonardo, residing at Mersch ( Luxembourg), Maria da
Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in          Paz Gomes, residing in Luxembourg, and Leonor Araujo,
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30               residing at Strassen ( Luxembourg ), represented by Jean­
Rue de Cessange.                                                     Noel Louis, Ariane Tornel and Fran?oise Parmentier, of
                                                                     the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Rue de Cessange .
— annul the decision of 12 August 1996 directing a                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
     colleague of the applicant to deputize for his
     hierarchical superior during the latter's absences on 16        — annul the decisions expressly rejecting their requests
     and 20 August 1996,                                                  for reimbursement of the sums wrongly deducted in
                                                                          respect of household grants,
— order the Commission to pay to the applicant the                   — order the defendant to reimburse to them all sums
     token sum of ECU 1 ,                                                 wrongly deducted and to pay interest thereon at the
                                                                          rate of 8 % per annum from the date when each
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                 deduction was made until the date of reimbursement,
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay the costs.
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 The applicant, a grade A 4 official, contests the decision
 of his Head of Unit directing a colleague of the applicant           The applicants, whose spouses work in the Luxembourg
 to deputize for the Head of Division E-3 during the                  banking sector, state that up until June 1996 the defendant
 latter's absences on 16 and 20 August 1996 .                         deducted, pursuant to Article 67 ( 2 ) of the Staff
 ---pagebreak--- No C 252/36           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   16 . 8 . 97
Regulations of officials, the household grant received by             Instance of the European Communities on 20 June 1997
their husbands from the family allowances to which they               by BP Chemicals Limited, represented by James Flynn,
were entitled. In July 1996 they were informed that, in               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
consequence of the judgment delivered by the Court of                 Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 1 1 Rue Goethe.
First Instance on 11 June 1996 in Case T-147/95 Pavan v.
Parliament, and having considered the conditions
governing the award of the grant in question, the
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
administration had concluded that the grant could no
longer be regarded as an allowance of like nature to the
household allowance provided for in Article 1 of
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and that it had                    — annul the Commission Decision No 941/96 of 28 April
therefore been decided that it would no longer deduct that                 1997 approving State aid; granted by France,
grant from the household allowance paid to the
applicants . The applicants thereupon requested retroactive
reimbursement of all of the sums deducted together with               — order the Commission to pay the costs .
default interest. Those requests were rejected by the
defendant on the ground that the applicants had not
challenged the acts adversely affecting them — namely, in
the present case, the remuneration statements in which the            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
contested    deductions      had  been   made — within      the
prescribed period.
                                                                      By the present application, the applicant seeks annulment
The applicants state, first, that they are seeking                    of the decision approving a French aid scheme, which
compensation for loss arising from fault on the part of the           consists essentially of a tax exemption for producers of
administration and not annulment of an act adversely                  certain biofuels designed to encourage them to purchase
affecting them, so that their claim falls within Article 179          certain inputs of agricultural origin ( the 1997 Scheme ).
of the EC Treaty and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff
Regulations. They therefore consider that the procedure
followed by them is in accordance with the Staff
Regulations and with case-law and that their action is                The applicant concentrates in this application on the
admissible .                                                          contested decision as it affects ethyl tertiary butyl ether
                                                                      ( ETBE ) production and the ethanol market. It is submitted
As regards the substance of the case, the applicants                  in this regard that the contested decision should be
maintain that the administration is bound, under                      annulled on three principal grounds:
Article 67 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1 , 2
and 3 of Annex VII thereto, to undertake an examination
of the allowances declared by its officials, with a view to           First, the Commission has exceeded its margin of
establishing the nature thereof in the light of the rule              discretion in three respects . It has authorized an aid
against overlapping benefits, and that it does not enjoy              without requiring any financial limit or restrictions on
any discretion when carrying out that examination. The                volumes of production or the life of the 1997 Scheme. It
fact that it wrongly characterized the household grant                has failed to make any assessment of the impact of the
paid to Luxembourg bank employees as being of like                    Scheme on the ethanol market and has therefore failed to
nature to the household allowance paid to officials                   satisfy itself that trading conditions will not be adversely
therefore constitutes, in the applicants' view, a service­            affected to an extent contrary to the common interest as
related fault. They infer from this that the administration           Article 92 ( 3 ) (c ) requires. The environmental benefits
is bound to reimburse the sums wrongly deducted as from               claimed for the Scheme are nugatory at best and could be
the date of adoption of the first decision, inasmuch as,              secured by far less expensive and less discriminatory
where a service-related fault, loss and a causal link are             measures .
established, Articles 179 and 215 of the EC Treaty and the
relevant case-law require the loss caused to be made good
in its entirety.
                                                                      Second, the Commission has misapplied Council Directive
                                                                      92/81/EEC concerning excise duty for mineral oils ( OJ No
                                                                      L 316, 31 . 10. 1992, p. 12 ). The only basis on which the
                                                                      1997 Scheme could qualify for a derogation from the
                                                                      requirement to levy excise duty which that Directive
Action brought on 20 June 1997 by BP Chemicals Limited                imposes is by a unanimous Council decision under
   against the Commission of the European Communities                 Article 8 ( 4 ) thereof. The suggestion that the 1997 Scheme
                                                                      can benefit for the derogation for pilot plants under
                        ( Case T-184/97)                              Article 8 (2 ) ( d ) thereof is wrong in law and in
                          ( 97IC 252/78 )                             contradiction with the position taken by the Commission
                                                                      in December 1996, when it declared the 1997 Scheme's
                 (Language of the case: English)                      predecessor measures illegal and incompatible with the
                                                                      common market and expressly stated that they could not
An action against the Commission of the European                      benefit from the 'pilot plant' derogation. Nothing has
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     changed to permit such a volte-face.