CELEX: C1998/094/81
Language: en
Date: 1998-03-28 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 14 January 1998 by F against the European Parliament (Case T-17/98)

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