CELEX: C2004/007/72
Language: en
Date: 2004-01-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-357/03: Action brought on 23 October 2003 by Bruno Gollnisch and Others against the European Parliament

10.1.2004             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 7/39
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, an official of the European Parliament, obtained           Following the entry into force on 1 January 2001 of the new
a court decision on 6 August 1999 to the effect that her                  financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the
daughter should reside mainly with her. The applicant and her             European Communities (1), the Parliament commenced a pro-
husband, also an official, were divorced by decree of 31 Octo-            cedure for amendment of the rules concerning budgetary
ber 2001, which became final on 12 January 2002. The                      heading 3701, the credits of which are intended to cover
Parliament decided to pay the applicant only half the travel              administrative and operational expenses of the political groups
expenses for her daughter, and to do so as from 2002, the                 and of the secretariat for non-attached Members. On 2 July
year in which the divorce took place.                                     2003 the Bureau of the Parliament decided to adopt the revised
                                                                          version of the latter rules, subject to amendment of the
                                                                          Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and other changes which
                                                                          might prove necessary following further consultations.
By this application the applicant contests that decision, on the
basis of Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. The
applicant submits that, in view of the decision granting her
primary custody of her daughter, the latter should be regarded            In support of their application for annulment of the decision
as being her dependent child and therefore that the travel                adopting the new rules, the applicant invoke first the alleged
expenses should be paid to her at the full rate.                          failure to comply with formal requirements laid down for the
                                                                          adoption of such rules. They contend that the new rules were
                                                                          notified to them in the form of a proposal which did not
                                                                          purport to be the final version of an official document. They
                                                                          also submit that the contested measure was adopted without
                                                                          the budgetary control committee, from which an opinion had
                                                                          been sought, having issued its report and that therefore an
                                                                          essential procedural requirement had been disregarded. In
                                                                          addition to matters of form, the applicants also claim that
                                                                          the new rules infringe the principle of equal treatment by
Action brought on 23 October 2003 by Bruno Gollnisch                      prohibiting new categories of expenses or employment of staff
        and Others against the European Parliament                        under budgetary heading 3701 only as far as non-attached
                                                                          Members are concerned.
                        (Case T-357/03)
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June
                                                                              2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget
                         (2004/C 7/72)                                        of the European Communities (OJ L 248 of 16.9.2002, p. 1).
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 23 October 2003 against the                   Action brought on 17 October 2003 by Siegfried Krahl
European Parliament by Bruno Gollnisch, of Limonest (France),               against the Commission of the European Communities
Marie-France Stirbois, of Villeneuve-Loubey (France), Carl
Lang, of Boulogne-Billancourt (France), Jean-Claude Martinez,
of Montpellier (France), Philip Claeys, of Overijse (Belgium)                                     (Case T-358/03)
and Koen Dillon, of Antwerp (Belgium), represented by
Wallerand de Saint Just, lawyer.
                                                                                                    (2004/C 7/73)
The applicants claim that Court of First Instance should:                                    (Language of the case: French)
—     annul the decision of the Bureau of the European
      Parliament of 2 July 2003 and more particularly the
      provisions thereof adopting a proposal by Mr Poettering             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      concerning the report of Mr Van Hulten, which amends                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      the rules on the use of budgetary heading 3701;
                                                                          European Communities on 17 October 2003 by Siegfried
                                                                          Krahl, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by Sébastien
—     order the European Parliament to pay the costs and                  Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal,
      lawyer’s fees amounting to EUR 10 000.                              lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.