CELEX: C1996/233/33
Language: en
Date: 1996-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 11 June 1996 by British Steel pLC against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-89/96)

10 . 8 . 96         EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 233/ 19
  mutual consent, whereby she was given custody of the                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
  couple's two children, and responsibility for looking after
  them and managing their assets . In compliance with those
  agreements, the Commission granted her, pursuant to                   — annul in its entirety Commission Decision 96/315/ECSE
                                                                              ('the contested Decision '),
  Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 260/68 , an additional tax
  abatement equivalent to twice the amount of the allowance
  for each dependent child . Upholding a complaint submitted            — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action
  by the applicant's ex-husband , the Commission                             including those of the applicant .
  subsequently decided that he alone was to be given the tax
  abatement in dispute .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  In contesting that decision, the applicant argues, first, that it
  infringed Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 260/68 , in so far
  as that provision grants a tax abatement ' for each dependent         The applicant is public limited company incorporated in
  child of the person liable'. The applicant explains that, in          England and engaged in the steel industry . It regularly
  accordance with the intention of both parties and as a                distributes within the territory of the Community iron and
  matter of fact, she had been entrusted with sole                      steel products of the kind defined in Annex I to the ECSC
 responsibility for custody of the couple's children, and for          Treaty.
  looking after them and managing their assets, and that
 determination of the maintenance payment — confirmed by               The applicant challenges a Decision which is addressed to
 the national court primarily on the basis of the parties'             Ireland , and in which the Commission declares compatible
 respective salary slips — takes account of the fiscal                 with the common market the grant of £ Irl 38,298 million by
 implications of that decision .                                       way of aid to Irish Steel .
 According to the applicant, the contested decision is also
 vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, in that, having           According to the applicant the contested Decision :
 regard to the financial responsibilities which she in practice
 shoulders, the maintenance payment to which her                       — purports to authorize the grant of State aid to an
 ex-husband has voluntarily agreed amounts to                               individual undertaking, notwithstanding the terms of
 approximately 25 % of the actual expenses incurred for the                 Commission Decision 3855/91 /ECSC . The ' Fifth SAC '
 maintenance and education of the children . Thus it is clear               declared that such aid would be regarded as prohibited .
 that, by comparison with the applicant's contribution to the               If the Commission decides that different measures are
 payment of expenses, her ex-husband's share cannot be                      ' necessary' for the attainment of the objectives of the
 regarded as amounting to 'heavy financial responsibilities'.               Community, it should amend or replace the ' Fifth SAC '
 Also, since the Commission pays the family allowances                      and not take individual decisions . As the ' Fifth SAC ' was
 directly to the applicant, and this does not affect her                    binding and comprehensive until such time as it was
 ex-husband's income, those allowances should not be taken                  amended , it was not open to the Commission to
 into      account  in   order     to  establish   his   financial          circumvent it by adopting individual decisions on the
 responsibilities .                                                         same subject-matter under Article 95 . The contested
                                                                            Decision should therefore be annulled on the ground of
 Lastly, the applicant alleges that the Commission has                      lack of competence .
 infringed the duty to state reasons .
                                                                       — contains infringements of the ECSC Treaty and of rules
                                                                            of law relating to its application . In particular :
                                                                           — the grant of the present State aid will lead to a
                                                                                  distortion of competition, because, contrary to the
                                                                                  established case-law of the Court and Commission
Action brought on 11 June 1996 by British Steel pLC                               practice, not only has this aid been authorized
   against the Commission of the European Communities                             without requiring any reduction in capacity, but Irish
                         ( Case T-89/96 )                                         Steel is still permitted to increase its capacity and its
                           ( 96/C 233/33 )                                        production ,
                                                                           — in adopting the contested Decision the Commission
                 (Language of tbe case: English)                                  took into account considerations irrelevant to the
                                                                                  test laid down in Article 95 , namely whether the
An action against the Commission of the European                                  grant of aid is 'necessary to attain . . . one of the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                 objectives of the Community set out in Articles 2 , 3
Instance of the European Communities on 11 June 1996 by                           and 4 '. In any event, the grant of the aid in question is
British Steel pLC, represented by Mr William Sibree and Mr                        not necessary within the meaning of Article 95 to
Philip Raven, Solicitors of the Supreme Court, Slaughter and                      attain one of the objectives of the ECSC Treaty,
May, Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Messrs Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen , 15                     — the contested Decision infringes the principle of
Côte d'Eich, Luxembourg.                                                         non-discrimination,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 233/20           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10 . 8 . 96
    — the contested Decision purports to regularize ex post           various letters dated 3 and 22 April 1996 the defendant
        facto aid which was granted without prior                      institution informed the applicant that it was disposed to
        notification or authorization , thus enabling the             communicate to the complainants the whole of the replies
        recipient of the aid to benefit from early payment in         given by it, save for two exceptions . The present action has
        contravention of the case-law of the Court of                 been brought against the decisions contained in those
        Justice ,                                                     letters .
— the Commission infringed              essential  procurement
    requirements . In particular:
    — the contested Decision is inadequately reasoned ,
    — the Commission failed to initiate the contentious
        procedure as required by Decision 3855/91 /ECSC,              Action brought on 13 June 1996 by Nicole Hankart against
                                                                                    the Council of the European Union
    — the Commission failed to consult the Consultative                                         ( Case T-91 /96 )
        Committee as required by Articles 19 and 95 of the                                        ( 96/C 233 /35 )
        ECSC Treaty .
                                                                                       (Language of tbe case: French)
                                                                      An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                      brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities on 13 June 1996 by Nicole Hankart, residing
                                                                      at Rhode-Saint-Genèse ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noël
Action brought on 13 June 1996 by Automobiles Peugeot
                                                                      Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of the
SA against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                                                                      Brussels Bar , with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                      the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl , 1 Rue Glesener .
                        ( Case T-90/96 )
                          ( 96/C 233 /34 )
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                (Language of tbe case: French)                        — annul the decision of the selection board in competition
                                                                           Conseil/C/360 of 3 October 1995 refusing to admit her
                                                                           to the second part of the written tests in the
An action against the Commission of the European                          competition ,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 13 June 1996 by
Automobiles Peugeot SA, established in Paris ( France ),              — order the defendant to pay the costs .
represented by Xavier De Roux , of the Paris Bar , with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Jacques Loesch , 1 1 Rue Goethe .
                                                                      The applicant states that she was admitted to the written
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          tests in open competition Conseil/C/360 for the constitution
                                                                      of a reserve for future recruitment of French-language
                                                                      secretaries , and that she did in fact take part in the
— annul the four decisions of the Commission of the
                                                                      compulsory written tests held on 17 November 1995 . On
    European Communities of 3 and 22 April 1996 ,                      12 January 1996 she was informed of the decision of the
                                                                      selection board not to admit her to the second part of the
— order the Commission to pay all the costs .                         written tests , on the ground that she had not participated in
                                                                      all the compulsory written tests . In consequence of the
                                                                      complaint lodged by the applicant, the selection board
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   replied that it appeared , following a detailed investigation,
                                                                      that one of the written tests had not been handed in to the
The applicant, a company marketing Peugeot vehicles in                organizers of the competition who were present and that she
Europe , is the object of four complaints by various                  could not therefore be admitted to the practical tests on a
distributors calling in question the compliance with                  PC . It is the latter decision which is contested in the present
                                                                      case .
Community law of the exclusive and selective standard form
contract for the distribution of Peugeot motor vehicles . In
consequence of those complaints , it provided all the                 The applicant observes that it is for the administration to lay
information requested by the Commission , pointing out                down and implement the detailed practical arrangements
that the information in question was covered in its entirety          for the organization of recruitment competitions . Those
by the obligation of professional secrecy . However, in               arrangements must be laid down in compliance with the