CELEX: C1998/094/82
Language: en
Date: 1998-03-28 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 19 January 1998 by Peter Reichert against the European Parliament (Case T-18/98)

C 94/34               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.3.98
Third, the Commission made incorrect observations on                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
market transparency. An independent expert report
annexed to the application for negative certification,                 Ð annul, or at least declare void, the decision contained
which showed that competition is promoted by increased                     in the defendant's letter of 14 October 1997 refusing
transparency, was ignored by the Commission. That                          the applicant's request for repayment of the
constitutes a serious defect in the determination of the                   Community tax paid by the applicant in respect of the
facts, which affected the outcome of the decision.                         period from 1 January 1989 to 31 September 1995
                                                                           inclusive,
Fourth, in the applicants' submission, Article 60 of the
ECSC Treaty pursues a system of complete transparency in               Ð in so far as may be necessary, declare void the decision
the field of prices and conditions of sale. If, according to               of the European Parliament to subject freelance
the Court of Justice, that applies to market transparency                  interpreters working for it to Community tax,
in the field of prices, then market transparency must all                  alternatively rule that that decision may not be relied
the more be permitted with respect to quantities delivered.                upon against the applicant for the purposes of
                                                                           deducting, in respect of the period from 1 January
Fifth, the fact that the Commission did not investigate the                1989 to 31 September 1995 inclusive, Community tax
market shares with the means usually available to it, as                   from the income earned by her from her activities as a
described in its Notice on the definition of relevant                     freelance interpreter working for the defendant,
market' (2), constitutes a serious defect in the
determination of the facts.                                            Ð in so far as may be necessary, declare void Article 8 of
                                                                           the agreement with the AIIC, alternatively rule that
Sixth, the applicants submit that the Commission                           that article may not be relied upon against the
infringed the second paragraph of Article 47 of the ECSC                   applicant for the purposes of deducting, in respect of
Treaty by informing the Government of the United States                    the period from 1 January 1989 to 31 September 1995
of America that it had no objections to the exchange of                    inclusive, Community tax from the income earned by
ECSC questionnaire 2Ð72. The applicants had not made                       her from her activities as a freelance interpreter
exchange of that questionnaire the subject of their                        working for the defendant,
notification, and according to the case-law business secrets
of the undertakings concerned must, on the basis of the                Ð order the defendant to repay the Community tax paid
general principle of which the procedural rules of                         by the applicant during the period from 1 January
competition law are an expression, receive especially                      1989 to 31 September 1995 inclusive, currently
extensive protection, which also means that the                            estimated by the applicant as amounting to ECU
undertakings concerned must be informed beforehand in                      17 309, together with interest at the annual rate of
an adequately reasoned decision, in order thus to be given                 8 % or at the legal rate applicable,
the opportunity to seek judicial protection before the
                                                                       Ð by way of subsidiary relief:
information is passed on.
                                                                           order the defendant to compensate the applicant for
Finally, the contested decision infringes the obligation to
                                                                           the damage, currently estimated to amount to BEF
state reasons under Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty, since it
                                                                           642 199, together with such further damage as may be
lacks a convincing statement of reasons on a number of
                                                                           specified, arising from additional claims by the Belgian
points.
                                                                           tax and/or social security authorities in relation to the
                                                                           period from 1 January 1989 to 31 September 1995
(1) OJ L 1, 3.1.1998, p. 10.
                                                                           inclusive during which the defendant retained
(2) OJ C 372, 9.12.1997, p. 5, at point 33 et seq.
                                                                           Community tax deducted from the applicant's income,
                                                                       Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 14 January 1998 by F against the                     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                     European Parliament                               Case T-2/98.
                         (Case T-17/98)
                          (98/C 94/81)
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the European Parliament was brought                  Action brought on 19 January 1998 by Peter Reichert
before the Court of First Instance of the European                                    against the European Parliament
Communities on 14 January 1998 by F, residing in                                               (Case T-18/98)
Brussels, represented by G. van der Wal, Advocaat with a                                        (98/C 94/82)
right of audience before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
(Supreme Court of the Netherlands), The Hague, and                                    (Language of the case: German)
L. Y. J. M. Parret, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,                   An action against the European Parliament was brought
31 Grand-Rue.                                                          before the Court of First Instance of the European
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 94/35
Communities on 19 January 1998 by Peter Reichert, of                 Action brought on 20 January 1998 by Colette Jemaa
Overijse (Belgium), represented by Dr Dieter Rogalla,                           against Council of the European Union
Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhövel (Germany), with an address                                        (Case T-20/98)
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Decker,
Braun & Wagner, 16 Avenue Marie-TheÂreÁse.                                                   (98/C 94/83)
                                                                                    (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     An action against Council of the European Union was
Ð annul Decision No 029945 of 21 October 1997                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    rejecting     his   complaint,     together     with   the       Communities on 20 January 1998 by Colette Jemaa,
    determinations of salary in the individual monthly               residing at PreÂvessin-Moens (France), represented by Jean-
    statements from 1 June 1996, in so far as they do not            NoeÈl Louis, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of
    contain any expatriation allowance,                              the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
                                                                     Cessange.
Ð order the European Parliament or its competent
    appointing authority to pay the applicant the                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
    expatriation allowance in accordance with the relevant
    provisions from his entering the service of the
                                                                     Ð annul the decision of the Council of 12 March 1997
    European Parliament, with interest at the usual rate,
                                                                          ordering the applicant to repay the sum of CHF
    from 1 June 1996,
                                                                          274 350 and that of 13 June 1997 withholding during
                                                                          59 months CHF 4 650 per month from the applicant's
Ð order the Parliament to pay the costs.                                  remuneration,
                                                                     Ð order the Council 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 German national, has worked since June
1996 in the press office of the Socialist Group in the               The applicant, an official in Grade B 3, was assigned from
European Parliament in Brussels.                                     September 1976 to the Council's Bureau de Liaison in
                                                                     Geneva. She claimed to be renting from 1 April 1992 a
                                                                     flat in Geneva at a monthly rent of CHF 4 450 plus CHF
By the contested decision the applicant's complaint against          200 for the right to a reserved parking space for her car.
the refusal to pay an expatriation allowance under the               Pursuant to Annex X to the Staff Regulations, she was
second indent of Article 4 (1) (a) of Annex VII to the Staff         reimbursed the expense incurred by way of rent as
Regulations was rejected. The rejection was founded                  declared from 1 April 1992 to 28 February 1997.
essentially on the fact that in the applicant's case there
were already permanent links with the country of service
                                                                     The applicant's statements in respect of her rent are false
when he entered the service, and he was thus at that time
                                                                     inasmuch as she had acquired ownership of the flat in
not in a situation which could establish that there was an
                                                                     question.
actual change of residence and/or transfer abroad within
the meaning of the Staff Regulations'.
                                                                     By decision of 12 March 1997 the appointing authority
                                                                     ordered the applicant to reimburse, as soon as possible,
The applicant submits that before the transfer of his                the rent overpaid amounting to CHF 274 350. By decision
present family residence to Belgium in July 1993 he lived            of 13 June 1997 it proceeded to implement the
in various places in the Federal Republic of Germany.                aforementioned decision by withholding, with effect from
Contrary to the view taken by the defendant, however, in             June 1997, CHF 4 650 per month from the applicant's
the period material for the grant of the expatriation                remuneration.
allowance he consistently neither carried on his main
occupation nor habitually resided in Belgium. He did                 In support of her action, the applicant relies on a single
indeed work for the German media inter alia in Brussels              ground of action of infringement of the provisions of
and was registered with the local authority as resident              Annex X to the Staff Regulations, unlawfulness of the
there, but his activity as a journalist frequently required          Council internal directives of 19 December 1988, adopted
on-the-spot work in places other than Brussels. His clear            pursuant to Annex X to the Staff Regulations, and breach
ties to the sending State, Germany, until July 1993 are              of the general principle of equal treatment and non-
manifested inter alia by the transfer of his salary in               discrimination.
German currency to a German account, by the German
social insurance he then had, and on the basis of the clear
centre of life of his family until that date.                        According to the applicant, the contested decisions are
                                                                     unlawful inasmuch as they require the repayment of cost
                                                                     of accommodation which, pursuant to the provisions of
                                                                     Annex X to the Staff Regulations and the case-law of the