CELEX: C2001/275/26
Language: en
Date: 2001-09-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-155/01: Action brought on 10 July 2001 by Robert Walton against the Commission of the European Communities.

C 275/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   29.9.2001
—     make good the damage caused to the applicant provision-            Action brought on 10 July 2001 by Robert Walton against
      ally assessed at 1 euro;                                                 the Commission of the European Communities.
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                                                   (Case T-155/01)
                                                                                                  (2001/C 275/26)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                            (Language of the case: English)
The applicant is a freelance interpreter who has worked                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
regularly for the Commission since 1986. After her 65th birth-           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
day, the applicant noticed that the Commission no longer                 European Communities on 10 July 2001 by Robert Walton,
contacted her with new offers of work. Later, the Commission             residing in Oxford (UK), represented by Paul Harris of Monck-
informed the applicant of its decision no longer to engage               ton Chambers, London (UK).
conference interpreters over the age of 65 and thus no longer
to call on her services on that ground. According to the
Commission, that decision was taken after the Council adopted            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Regulation No 628/2000 (1) amending Article 78 of the
Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the Communi-               1.    Annul the Commission decision of 3 October 2000;
ties (CES).
                                                                         2.    Declare that that decision and/or the Commission’s letter
                                                                               of termination was unlawful and/or in breach of the
According to the applicant, the Commission gives Article 78                    notice of termination provisions in Article 5 of the
of the CES as the reason for its decision to make termination                  contract and/or Article 47 of the Conditions of Employ-
of the employment of freelance interpreters subject to                         ment of Other Servants of the European Communities;
Article 74 of the CES, and thus subject also to the age limit of
65 years. However, the applicant claims that Article 74 is               3.    Order the Commission to pay the applicant compen-
clearly not intended to govern the situation of freelance                      sation for breach of contract, and/or for breach of
interpreters. It is not feasible to consider that the engagement               Article 47 of the Conditions of Employment, in the
of an interpreter ceases as provided for by Article 74 ‘at the                 amounts referred to in the compensation section of this
end of the month in which the agent reaches the age of                         application;
65 years’, since such engagement could be reduced to a matter
of days. Any age limit in respect of the provision of services           4.    Order the Commission to pay to the applicant his costs;
by freelance interpreters can therefore be considered to be a                  and
condition which applies only in the event of recruitment of a
freelance interpreter. However, there is no statutory provision          5.    Take such further measures and grant such further relief,
regarding any age limit with regard to pursuit of their activities.            under the Statute of the Court of Justice and/or Rules of
                                                                               Procedure of the Court of First Instance, as may be
                                                                               necessary, just or equitable.
The applicant claims that to subject freelance interpreters who
provide their services to the Community institutions to an
age limit constitutes discrimination between those freelance
interpreters who provide their services to the Community                 Pleas in law and main arguments
institutions and those who do not.
                                                                         The applicant in the present case is a Chartered Engineer,
                                                                         specialising in power and nuclear projects, who in October
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads, moreover,                1999 was recruited by the Commission to set up in Research
breach of the principle of non-retroactivity, acquired rights,           Directorate-General XII a help desk for small and medium-
legitimate expectations, sound administration and legal cer-             sized enterprises involved with innovation and research.
tainty. In addition to her claims for annulment, the applicant
also seeks compensation for material and non-material damage
allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission’s decision.             The application seeks the annulment of the decision contained
                                                                         in a letter of termination, of 3 October 2000, which purported
                                                                         to ‘terminate [the applicant’s] employment’, ‘with effect from
(1) Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 628/2000 of                16.10.2000’.
    20 March 2000 amending Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC)
    No 259/68 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
    European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of             The applicant claims wrongful dismissal and states to that end
    Other Servants of the Communities (OJ L 76 of 25.3.2000, p. 1).      that:
                                                                         —     The commencement date of the contract was 1 November
                                                                               1999.
 ---pagebreak--- 29.9.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 275/13
—    Article 34 of the Staff Regulations is not applicable to his      Pleas in law and main arguments
     employment. His probationary period was governed by
     Article 14 of the Conditions of Employment of Other
     Servants of the European Communities and by the
     contract.                                                         In 1995 the Danish Minister for Transport established the
                                                                       company DSB Busser A/S with ownership vested in De Danske
                                                                       Statsbaner (DSB). The company took over buses and other
—    Under Article 5(a) of the contract and Article 14 of the
                                                                       assets from DSB and operated a number of regional and local
     Conditions of Employment, his probationary period was
                                                                       bus routes in Denmark. The company was subsequently
     six months, coming to an end on 30 April 2000.
                                                                       transferred to the Danish Ministry of Transport and changed
                                                                       its name to Combus A/S (’Combus’).
—    He was not dismissed during that six-month probationary
     period.
—    The termination decision did not provide him with the             In connection with the company’s taking over of the operation
     requisite three- months’ notice and was thus made in              of routes, employees of DSB placed on loan to Combus were
     breach of Article 5(b) of the contract and Article 47 of          offered compensation for transferring to employment on a
     the Conditions of Employment. In addition, no or no               group contract basis, this compensation being paid by DSB. In
     full compensation has been paid, in further breach of             1999 the Ministry of Transport granted Combus a secured
     Article 47.                                                       loan of DKK 100 million and made a capital injection of DKK
                                                                       200 million, ostensibly in order to prevent Combus, which
—    In any event the applicant never accepted the proposed,           was in serious financial difficulties, from going into liquidation.
     or any, extension of his probationary period. On the
     contrary, he expressly and repeatedly rejected any exten-
     sion whatsoever.                                                  The applicant, which is a branch organisation of bus compani-
                                                                       es, lodged a complaint with the Commission in November
                                                                       1999 in regard to the above measures.
                                                                       In November 2000 the Danish State informed the Commission
                                                                       that it intended to grant State aid to Combus in connection
Action brought on 11 July 2001 by Danske Busvognmænd                   with the company’s sale to the English-owned company Arriva
  against the Commission of the European Communities                   Danmark A/S. The aid was estimated at DKK 171.8 million. In
                                                                       the contested decision the Commission approved the aid in
                       (Case T-157/01)                                 the respective amounts of DKK 300 million and DKK 171.8
                                                                       million.
                       (2001/C 275/27)
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Commission has approved
                  (Language of the Case: Danish)                       unlawful State aid in so far as the conditions in
                                                                       Article 87(3)(c) EC have not been satisfied. Even though the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-              Commission can, as a general rule, lawfully apply the frame-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the             work provisions on State aid to undertakings in crisis, those
European Communities on 11 July 2001 by Danske Bus-                    framework provisions cannot depart from the provisions of
vognmænd, Frederiksberg (Denmark), represented by Per Dal-             Article 87 EC. The aid for Combus, it argues, is not in the
skov.                                                                  Community interest and does not serve those objectives which
                                                                       may justify approval of aid as restructuring aid. The aid was in
                                                                       the nature of operating aid or, possibly, rescue aid, but this has
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            not been mentioned by the Commission as relevant in this
                                                                       case. Further, the aid had the effect of distorting competition.
—    Primarily: annul the European Commission’s decision
     of 28 March 2001 concerning aid measure
     No NN 127/2000 (State aid for Combus A/S) (SG (2001)              The applicant also claims that the Commission has mistakenly
     D/287297), and rule that the decision is void pursuant to         dealt with only two out of three tranches of State aid in that it
     the first paragraph of Article 231 EC;                            failed to address the obligation which DSB undertook to pay
                                                                       compensation to employees transferring to employment on a
—    In the alternative: annul the European Commission’s               group contract basis. The Commission further erred, it argues,
     approval of the portion of the aid granted to Combus A/S          in treating the State aid as one entire aid measure despite the
     on 31 May 1999;                                                   fact that three separate and independent State aid measures
                                                                       were granted. While there was presumably a causal connection
—    Order the European Commission to pay the costs                    between the two aid amounts of DKK 300 million and DKK
     involved in bringing the case before the Court of First           171.8 million, these were separate in time and served different
     Instance.                                                         objectives.