CELEX: C1998/055/65
Language: en
Date: 1998-02-20 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 24 December 1997 by Wybo NV against the Commission of the European Communities and the Council of the European Union (Case T-619/97)

20.2.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 55/33
In support of their plea in law, the applicants argue that          Menen (Belgium), represented by P. Cavenaille and K.
the Council has failed to comply with the duty to state             Tanghe, of the LieÁge Bar, with an address for service in
reasons pursuant to Article 190 of the Treaty. The Council          Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. Schmitt, 62, avenue
has failed to explain adequately why release of the                 Guillaume.
documents to which access has been refused should be
contrary to the public interest'. Since the reason given
consists merely in a standard reference to opinions drafted         The applicant claims that the Court should:
by the Legal Services being exempted en bloc from the
right of access, without any kind of specific consideration
being paid as to whether the interests invoked regarding            Ð declare the application admissible and well founded,
the maintenance of legal certainty and the stability of
Community law apply in regard to the documents
requested, the decision must on that ground alone be                Ð rule that the defendants are liable for the damage
annulled as being vitiated by fundamental procedural                    suffered by the applicant,
defects.
                                                                    Ð consequently, order the defendants jointly and
The applicants further argue that the decision is contrary              severally to pay a sum provisionally fixed at
to fundamental principles of law concerning application of              BEF 46 655 281, subject to increase or decrease during
the Treaty, including in particular the principle in force on           the course of the proceedings, together with 8 %
transparency in the decision-making process (see                        interest from 1 January 1993, the date on which the
Declaration No 17 in the Final Act to the Treaty on                     damage was effectively suffered, to the date of
European Union, the Code of Conduct concerning Public                   payment in full,
Access to Council and Commission Documents (93/730/
EC, OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 41), and Council Decision
93/731/EC of 20 December 1993 on public access to                   Ð order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the
Council documents (OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 43)). The                   costs.
applicants submit in this connection that the exceptions to
the fundamental principle of transparency must be
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
narrowly construed, and the Council cannot therefore
exempt an entire group of documents from the right of
access merely on the basis of their origin. On the contrary,        The applicant, a firm of customs agents, complains that
an examination must be made in each case as to whether              the defendants ruined its intra-Community business with
the interests referred to in the Code of Conduct provide            effect from 1 January 1993 by abolishing customs controls
justification for exempting a specific document from the            and formalities at internal borders through a series of acts
right of access. There are in this case no such specific            which it specifies in detail. It also complains that the
interests such as could justify the refusal to grant access.        defendants failed to adopt any effective transitional
                                                                    measures enabling customs agents progressively to adapt
                                                                    to the new situation. In that regard, it pleads inter alia
In the alternative, the applicants submit that the interests
                                                                    breach of acquired rights and violation of the principle of
pleaded by the Council do not appear to apply in regard
                                                                    the protection of legitimate expectations.
to the documents which they have requested. On the
contrary, the maintenance of legal certainty and the
stability of Community law can be guaranteed by allowing
the public to discover the full basis on which the Council
has adopted secondary legal measures.
                                                                    Action brought on 24 December 1997 by Wybo NV
                                                                    against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                               and the Council of the European Union
                                                                                          (Case T-619/97)
Action brought on 24 December 1997 by Transfluvia NV
against the Commission of the European Communities                                          (98/C 55/65)
           and the Council of the European Union
                      (Case T-611/97)                                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
                        (98/C 55/64)
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                       Communities and the Council of the European Union was
                                                                    brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                    Communities on 24 December 1997 by Wybo NV, of
An action against the Commission of the European                    Poperinge (Belgium), represented by P. Cavenaille and K.
Communities and the Council of the European Union was               Tanghe, of the LieÁge Bar, with an address for service in
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. Schmitt, 62, avenue
Communities on 24 December 1997 by Transfluvia NV, of               Guillaume.
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/34                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.2.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               relied upon against the applicant for the purposes of
                                                                          deducting, in respect of the period from 1 January
Ð declare the application admissible and well founded,                    1989 to 30 September 1995 inclusive, Community tax
                                                                          from the income earned by her from her activities as a
Ð rule that the defendants are liable for the damage
                                                                          freelance interpreter working for the defendant,
     suffered by the applicant,
Ð consequently, order the defendants jointly and                      Ð order the defendant to repay the Community tax paid
     severally to pay a sum provisionally fixed at                        by the applicant during the period from 1 January
     BEF 10 377 559, subject to increase or decrease during               1989 to 30 September 1995 inclusive, currently
     the course of the proceedings, together with 8 %                     estimated by the applicant as amounting to
     interest from 1 January 1993, the date on which the                  ECU 43 265, together with interest at the rate of 8 %
     damage was effectively suffered, to the date of                      or at the legal rate applicable,
     payment in full,
                                                                      Ð by way of subsidiary relief,
Ð order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the
     costs.                                                               order the defendant to compensate the applicant for
                                                                          the damage, currently estimated to amount to BEF
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       642 199, together with such further damage as may be
                                                                          specified, arising from additional claims by the Belgian
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                    tax and/or social security authorities in relation to the
Case T-611/97 (1).                                                        period from 1 January 1989 to 30 September 1995
                                                                          inclusive during which the defendant retained
(1) See page 33 of this Official Journal.                                 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 30 December 1997 by E against the
                                                                      The defendant was not entitled to levy Community tax.
         Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-2/98)                               1. By levying Community tax in respect of the applicant,
                           (98/C 55/66)                                   the Commission acted contrary to Community law, in
                                                                          particular Article 13 of the Protocol on the Privileges
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                            and Immunities and the rules implementing that
                                                                          provision together with Article 28 of the Merger
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                          Treaty, as well as the principle of legality; in so doing,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                          it misused, alternatively exceeded, its powers.
Instance of the European Communities on 30 December
1997 by E, residing in Brussels, represented by G. van der            2. For the reasons stated above, the defendant's refusal to
Wal, Advocaat with a right of audience before the Hoge                    repay to the applicant the Community tax paid by the
Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the                                latter since 1989 is unlawful; in addition, it is clearly
Netherlands), The Hague, and L. Y. J. M. Parret, of the                   under a duty to repay the sums paid by the applicant
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                which the latter was not liable to pay.
the Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                      3. Moreover, the refusal to repay the sums in question is
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          contrary to the principles of the protection of
Ð annul, or at least declare void, the decision contained                 legitimate expectations and of equality.
     in the defendant's letter of 31 October 1997 refusing
     the applicant's request for repayment of the                     In so far as the Court considers that it cannot order the
     Community tax paid by the applicant since 1 January              defendant to repay the Community tax paid by the
     1989,                                                            applicant, the applicant applies for a declaration by the
                                                                      Court that the defendant is liable for the damage suffered
Ð declare void Article 8 of the agreement with the                    by the applicant as a result of the defendant's unlawful
     A.I.I.C., alternatively rule that that Article may not be        conduct (Article 215 of the EC Treaty).