CELEX: C1997/074/44
Language: en
Date: 1997-03-08 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 9 December 1996 by Andrea Von Löwis against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-202/96)

No C 74/20             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8 . 3 . 97
 Arlon ( Belgium ), represented by Alain Lorang, of the                  addressed to the Commission's staff in Luxembourg and,
 Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                          second, for compensation for the damage suffered — the
 Luxembourg at his Chambers, 51 rue Albert ler, v.                       Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of K.
 Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                         Lenaerts, President, and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges;
 initially, Joseph Griesmar and, subsequently, Ana Maria                 H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 13 December 1996,
 Alves Vieira and Julian Currall ) — application, first, for             the operative part of which is as follows:
 annulment of the implicit decision of the Commission
 rejecting the applicant's complaint in respect of her pay               I.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
 slip for January 1994, inasmuch as that pay slip shows
 that the administration applied to her the scales of                    2 . There is no need to give a ruling on the application for
 parental contributions in force in Luxembourg in respect                     leave to intervene.
 of the nursery services used by her as an official, and,
 second, for a declaration that the scales fixed by the Social           3 . The applicant is ordered to bear all his own costs and
 Activities Committee are illegal — the Court of First                        to pay the costs of the Commission. The Union
 Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: A. Saggio,                          Syndicale — Luxembourg is ordered to bear its own
 President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;                       costs .
 H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 January
 1997, in which it:                                                      0 ) OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
 I. annuls the applicant's pay slip for January 1994
      inasmuch as it shows a deduction in respect of a
      parental contribution to the nursery service provided
      by the Luxembourg Childhood Centre, calculated on
      the basis of the scales applied by the Commission in               Action brought on 9 December 1996 by Andrea Von
      Luxembourg,                                                        Lowis against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                    Communities
 2 . orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                                                 ( Case T-202/96 )
 (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .                                                                  ( 97/C 74/44 )
                                                                                         (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Instance of the European Communities on 9 December
                      of 13 December 1996                                1996 by Andrea Von Lowis, represented by Gerard van
                                                                        der Wal, member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the
in Case T-128/96: Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the                  Netherlands, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                   European Communities (')                             at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 , Grand Rue .
 (Officials — Refusal by the Commission to distribute
 through its internal messenger services communications to              The applicant claims that the Court should:
the staff from an independent trade union — Legal
interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Claims               — declare the application admissible,
for damages — Subject-matter of the dispute — Summary
              of the pleas in law — Admissibility)                      — declare the decision of 21 October 1996 void,
                             ( 97/C 74/43 )
                                                                        — declare the application of Community tax to the
                 (Language of the case: French)                              applicant, who works for the defendant as a freelance
                                                                             interpreter, unlawful and/or declare Article 8 of the
In Case T-128/96 : Giorgio Lebedef, an official of the                       Agreement with AIIC null and void,
Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Senningerberg ( Luxembourg ), represented by Gilles                     — order repayment of the Community tax withheld by
Bouneou, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for                          the defendant and/or paid by the applicant since
service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 15                           1 January 1989 until the date of the judgment to be
avenue du Bois, v. Commission of the European                                given in this case, together with an interest at a rate of
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian                           8 % or as prescribed by law,
Currall ) — application, first, for annulment of the
decision of the Head of the Unit dealing with relations                 — order the Commission to pay the costs of the
with official bodies representing the staff and with the                     applicant.
trade     unions    and        staff  associations   within    the
Commission 's Directorate-General for Personnel               and       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Administration ( DG IX ), refusing to arrange the
distribution through the Commission's internal messenger                The applicant explains that since 1973 she has worked as
services of communications from the independent trade                   a freelance interpreter for the Commission. Since 1989 the
union 'Action & Defense — Luxembourg' (A & D — L )                      Commission has deducted Community tax from the
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 3 . 97              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 74/21
remuneration of freelance interpreters on the basis of                  The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
agreements concluded every five years with the AIIC                     should:
('Association Internationale des Interpretes de Confer­
ence'). On 8 July 1996 , the applicant requested the                    1 . declare that the European Economic Community is
defendant to reimburse the Community tax paid by her                          liable in damages to the applicants;
since 1989 and to declare that her income would, in the
future, no longer be subject to Community tax. The                      2 . declare that the European Economic Community is
request was rejected by the Commission in a letter of                         liable to the applicant for the loss of income suffered
8 August 1996 . An appeal against that decision lodged by                     by the applicant as a result of the application of
the applicant on 18 September 1996, was rejected by the                       Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March
defendant by letter of 21 October 1996 .                                      1984 (*), and the application of Council Regulation
                                                                              ( EEC) No 764/89 of 20 March 1989 (2) amending
The applicant submits that the decision contained in the                      Regulation (EEC ) No 857/84, in so far as no provision
letter of 21 October 1996 should be annulled on the                           was made in those Regulations for a representative
following grounds:                                                            reference quantity to be allocated to SLOM assignees
                                                                              who had delivered no milk in the reference year
— The contested decision is based on an incorrect and                         chosen by the Member State concerned pursuant to an
      unlawful     application     and   interpretation   of the              undertaking under Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1078/
      Agreements with AIIC.                                                   77 ( 3 ) of 17 May 1977;
      The defendant acted unlawfully and contrary to the                3 . declare that the applicant has suffered loss of income
                                                                              in an amount constituted by the difference between
      provisions and the objectives of the Agreements
                                                                              the income, including turnover and herd increase,
      ( equality of treatment as regards the fiscal situation of              which in the normal course of affairs he would have
      all freelance interpreters recruited by the Commission)
      by applying the Agreements in such a way that the                       obtained from the quantities of milk which he should
      applicant was obliged to pay Community tax on top                       have delivered if, during the period between 1 April
      of the national income tax paid in her country of                        1984 (the date of entry into force of the Regulation
                                                                              ( EEC) No 857/84 ) and 31 March 1994 (the date of
      residence, namely Switzerland, during the years 1989
      to 1993 and can obtain reimbursement of Community                       expiry of the 1993/1994 period of levy), he had had
      tax since 1994 only under the strict conditions laid                    available to him the reference quantity of milk to
                                                                              which he was entitled and, on the other hand, the
      down in Article 8 ( 3 ) of the Agreement for the period
       1994 to 1998 .                                                         income which he actually received during the
                                                                              abovementioned period;
— There is no legal basis for the imposition of                         4.    declare that interest shall accrue on the amounts of
       Community tax on the applicant.                                        income owing to the applicant with effect from the
                                                                               date of delivery of the Court's judgment, at the rate of
       The provisions in the Agreements with AIIC under                        8% per annum, or at such rate as the Court may
       which the income of freelance interpreters is made                      deem fit, until the date of full and final settlement;
       subject to Community tax are null and void because
       there is no legal basis which enables the defendant or           5 . order the defendants to pay the costs.
       any of the other parties to the Agreements to deduct,
       on the basis of a private agreement, Community tax
       from the remuneration of the applicant.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        The present case concerns the partial transfer of a SLOM
                                                                         holding during the currency of a SLOM agreement.
                                                                         The applicant maintains that, with effect from the entry
                                                                         into force of the additional levy system until the 1994/
 Application brought on 12 December 1996 by A. van
 Bennekom v. Council and Commission of the European                      1995 levy ^ period, the quota to be allocated to him on
                             Communities                                 the basis of Council Regulation (EEC ) No 2055/93 (4 )
                                                                         was -wrongly withheld. The European Community is
                          ( Case T-206/96)                               responsible for the resulting damage on the basis of the
                             ( 97/C 74/45 )                              second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty on
                                                                         account of an infringement of the principle of the
                                                                         protection of legitimate expectations and for exceeding its
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                         powers .
 An application was brought before the Court of First                    (')  OJ  No   L 90, 1 . 4 . 1984, p . 13 .
 Instance of the European Communities on 12 December                     (2)  OJ  No   L 84, 29 . 3 . 1989 , p. 2 .
 1996 against the Council and Commission of the                          (3)  OJ  No   L 131 , 26 . 5 . 1977, p . 1 .
 European Communities by A. van Bennekom, residing at                    (4 ) OJ  No   L 187, 29 . 7. 1993 , p . 8 .
 Maasbommel (Netherlands ), represented by A. A. M. van
 Beek, of the Tilburg bar.