CELEX: C1997/074/45
Language: en
Date: 1997-03-08 00:00:00
Title: Application brought on 12 December 1996 by A. van Bennekom v. Council and Commission of the European Communities (Case T-206/96)

8 . 3 . 97              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 74/21
remuneration of freelance interpreters on the basis of                  The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
agreements concluded every five years with the AIIC                     should:
('Association Internationale des Interpretes de Confer­
ence'). On 8 July 1996 , the applicant requested the                    1 . declare that the European Economic Community is
defendant to reimburse the Community tax paid by her                          liable in damages to the applicants;
since 1989 and to declare that her income would, in the
future, no longer be subject to Community tax. The                      2 . declare that the European Economic Community is
request was rejected by the Commission in a letter of                         liable to the applicant for the loss of income suffered
8 August 1996 . An appeal against that decision lodged by                     by the applicant as a result of the application of
the applicant on 18 September 1996, was rejected by the                       Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March
defendant by letter of 21 October 1996 .                                      1984 (*), and the application of Council Regulation
                                                                              ( EEC) No 764/89 of 20 March 1989 (2) amending
The applicant submits that the decision contained in the                      Regulation (EEC ) No 857/84, in so far as no provision
letter of 21 October 1996 should be annulled on the                           was made in those Regulations for a representative
following grounds:                                                            reference quantity to be allocated to SLOM assignees
                                                                              who had delivered no milk in the reference year
— The contested decision is based on an incorrect and                         chosen by the Member State concerned pursuant to an
      unlawful     application     and   interpretation   of the              undertaking under Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1078/
      Agreements with AIIC.                                                   77 ( 3 ) of 17 May 1977;
      The defendant acted unlawfully and contrary to the                3 . declare that the applicant has suffered loss of income
                                                                              in an amount constituted by the difference between
      provisions and the objectives of the Agreements
                                                                              the income, including turnover and herd increase,
      ( equality of treatment as regards the fiscal situation of              which in the normal course of affairs he would have
      all freelance interpreters recruited by the Commission)
      by applying the Agreements in such a way that the                       obtained from the quantities of milk which he should
      applicant was obliged to pay Community tax on top                       have delivered if, during the period between 1 April
      of the national income tax paid in her country of                        1984 (the date of entry into force of the Regulation
                                                                              ( EEC) No 857/84 ) and 31 March 1994 (the date of
      residence, namely Switzerland, during the years 1989
      to 1993 and can obtain reimbursement of Community                       expiry of the 1993/1994 period of levy), he had had
      tax since 1994 only under the strict conditions laid                    available to him the reference quantity of milk to
                                                                              which he was entitled and, on the other hand, the
      down in Article 8 ( 3 ) of the Agreement for the period
       1994 to 1998 .                                                         income which he actually received during the
                                                                              abovementioned period;
— There is no legal basis for the imposition of                         4.    declare that interest shall accrue on the amounts of
       Community tax on the applicant.                                        income owing to the applicant with effect from the
                                                                               date of delivery of the Court's judgment, at the rate of
       The provisions in the Agreements with AIIC under                        8% per annum, or at such rate as the Court may
       which the income of freelance interpreters is made                      deem fit, until the date of full and final settlement;
       subject to Community tax are null and void because
       there is no legal basis which enables the defendant or           5 . order the defendants to pay the costs.
       any of the other parties to the Agreements to deduct,
       on the basis of a private agreement, Community tax
       from the remuneration of the applicant.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        The present case concerns the partial transfer of a SLOM
                                                                         holding during the currency of a SLOM agreement.
                                                                         The applicant maintains that, with effect from the entry
                                                                         into force of the additional levy system until the 1994/
 Application brought on 12 December 1996 by A. van
 Bennekom v. Council and Commission of the European                      1995 levy ^ period, the quota to be allocated to him on
                             Communities                                 the basis of Council Regulation (EEC ) No 2055/93 (4 )
                                                                         was -wrongly withheld. The European Community is
                          ( Case T-206/96)                               responsible for the resulting damage on the basis of the
                             ( 97/C 74/45 )                              second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty on
                                                                         account of an infringement of the principle of the
                                                                         protection of legitimate expectations and for exceeding its
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                         powers .
 An application was brought before the Court of First                    (')  OJ  No   L 90, 1 . 4 . 1984, p . 13 .
 Instance of the European Communities on 12 December                     (2)  OJ  No   L 84, 29 . 3 . 1989 , p. 2 .
 1996 against the Council and Commission of the                          (3)  OJ  No   L 131 , 26 . 5 . 1977, p . 1 .
 European Communities by A. van Bennekom, residing at                    (4 ) OJ  No   L 187, 29 . 7. 1993 , p . 8 .
 Maasbommel (Netherlands ), represented by A. A. M. van
 Beek, of the Tilburg bar.