CELEX: C1998/184/24
Language: en
Date: 1998-06-13 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 6 April 1998 by Antonio Giannini against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-57/98)

13.6.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 184/13
     provision in which the UEAPME's right to participate            Action brought on 6 April 1998 by Antonio Giannini
     in negotiations is recognized;                                    against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                            (Case T-57/98)
Ð order the Council to pay the costs.                                                        (98/C 184/24)
                                                                                    (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
This action concerns the second directive to implement an            Communities was brought before the Court of First
agreement concluded by management and labour at                      Instance of the European Communities on 6 April 1998
Community level on the basis of the Agreement on social              by Antonio Giannini, residing in Brussels, represented by
policy annexed to the Protocol on social policy annexed to           Marc Dallemagne and Carlo Locchi, of the Brussels Bar.
the Treaty of Rome as amended by the Maastricht Treaty.
The applicant, an employers' association combining small
and medium-sized undertakings at European level,                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
challenges that directive, in so far as it concerns those
undertakings. The first directive pursuant to the
                                                                     Ð rule that the present case is connected with Case
abovementioned agreement (1) was also the subject of an
                                                                         T-282/97 and order that it be joined therewith;
action brought by the same applicant (2).
                                                                     Ð annul the defendant's decision to fill post COM/062/
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the                   97 by appointing another person thereto;
applicant in the present case repeat to a large extent those
relied on in Case T-135/96 UEAPME v. Council.
                                                                     Ð annul the defendant's decision No 6872 of
                                                                         18 December 1997 rejecting complaint No R/560/97,
In the applicant's view, the contested directive infringes its           which was notified to the applicant on 6 January
right to participate in negotiations, the freedom of                     1998;
association of small and medium-sized enterprises and the
principles which lie at the basis of social democracy. In its
                                                                     Ð order that the applicant be paid compensation for the
view, the Commission was under an obligation not only to
                                                                         damage suffered by him, amounting to the difference
ascertain the representativeness of the signatories to the
                                                                         between the applicant's current salary and the salary
framework agreement but also and above all to ascertain
                                                                         which he would have received in the post at issue
the representativeness of the other employers and workers
                                                                         since 28 April 1995;
who had also demonstrated a wish to participate in
negotiations, in particular where one of them represents
those enterprises whose interests are specifically                   Ð order the defendant to pay all of the costs.
mentioned in Article 2(2) of the Agreement on social
policy. It is in that way also that the contested directive
breaches that provision.                                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Likewise, the directive at issue infringes Articles 3 and 4          With regard to the facts of the case, the applicant refers to
of the agreement inasmuch as the Commission, in the                  the claims already advanced by him in Case T-282/97 (1),
interests of ensuring balanced support for the parties to            which form, according to the applicant, an integral part of
social dialogue, should have drawn the attention of the              the present application. The applicant pleads misuse of
other partners to the need to include the UEAPME in the              powers, since the contested decision was taken not in the
negotiating process rather than draw a distinction between           interests of the service but with a view to offering one of
general inter-trade organizations and the others.                    the applicant's colleagues a promotion which that
                                                                     colleague did not deserve. According to the applicant, that
                                                                     person did not fulfil, at the time of his appointment, the
                                                                     conditions attaching to the duties which he was carrying
Finally, the applicant claims that the adoption of the
                                                                     out.
directive at issue breaches the principles of patere legem
quam ipse fecisti and equal treatment.
                                                                     In addition, the applicant contests the defendant's refusal
(1) Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework       to inform him of the merits of the other candidates. The
    agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and         applicant considers that that refusal can only have been
    the ETUC (OJ L 145, 19.6.1996, p. 4).                            intended to protect the appointment of an official who did
(2) Case T-135/96 UEAPME v. Council (OJ C 318, 26.10.1996,           not possess the qualifications required.
    p. 21).
                                                                     Lastly, the applicant repeats his application for
                                                                     compensation for the material and non-material damage
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/14             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.6.98
suffered by him, since he considers that he has adequately          According to the contested decision, the above system
demonstrated the service-related fault and the causal link          contains provisions which involve discrimination on the
between that fault and the damage suffered by him.                  grounds of nationality, conflict with the principle of
                                                                    freedom of establishment and constitute aid to encourage
                                                                    investment in ships in a way which is liable to infringe
(1) OJ C 387, 20.12.97, p. 25.
                                                                    Community rules and grants aid for the leasing of ships,
                                                                    which constitutes operating aid of the type not allowed by
                                                                    Community guidelines.
                                                                    In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:
Action brought on 6 April 1998 by Sardegna Lines Ð
Servizi Marittimi della Sardegna SpA against the                    Ð infringement of Council Directive 90/684/EEC of
         Commission of the European Communities                         21 December 1990 on aid to shipbuilding (1), which
                                                                        forms part of a system of incentives in the industry
                        (Case T-58/98)
                                                                        which has not been taken into consideration at all in
                         (98/C 184/25)                                  the procedure in question;
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     Ð error of assessment and misuse of power in that the
                                                                        legal and factual elements used to support the
                                                                        contested decision are absent. In this respect, the
An action against the Commission of the European                        Commission made an error of assessment with regard
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       to the alleged substantial amendments which Law 11/
Instance of the European Communities on 6 April 1998                    1988 made to Law 20/1951, which led the
by Sardegna Lines Ð Servizi Marittimi della Sardegna                    Commission to characterize the system of regional
SpA, represented by Francesco Caruso, Ugo Iaccarino,                    incentives at issue as new aid' and to consider it
Beniamino Carnevale and Claudia Caruso, of the Naples                   subject to the obligation to give prior notice pursuant
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   to Article 93(3) of the Treaty;
Chambers of Francesco Caruso, 2A Rue Van Moer,
Brussels.
                                                                    Ð infringement and erroneous application of Article 92(1)
                                                                        of the Treaty inasmuch as trade between the Member
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             States is not affected and competition is not distorted;
                                                                    Ð that the conditions for the application of
Ð annul Commission Decision 98/95/EC of 21 October                      Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty are met in that
    1997 concerning aid granted by the Region of Sardinia               Sardinia is an underdeveloped Italian region, and the
    (Italy) to shipping companies in Sardinia (OJ L 20 of               defendant should have taken account of the isolation
    27.1.1998, p. 30);                                                  and remoteness of the region;
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                            Ð breach of essential procedural requirements inasmuch
                                                                        as the statement of reasons for the decision is
                                                                        inadequate.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    (1) OJ L 380, 31.12.1990, p. 27.
The applicant contests the Commission's decision of
21 October 1997 inasmuch as it considers a system of aid
granted by the region of Sardinia to shipping line to be
unlawful.
                                                                    Action brought on 8 April 1998 by Volkswagen AG
The allegedly unlawful aid was introduced by Sardinian
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
Regional Law No 20 of 15 May 1951 which established a
fund at the Credito Industriale del Banco di Sardegna for                                   (Case T-62/98)
the grant of loans to shipping companies intending to
                                                                                             (98/C 184/26)
build, purchase, convert or repair vessels. The grant of
such loans was subject to the condition that the
beneficiary undertaking had its head office, country of                            (Language of the case: German)
domicile for tax purposes and port of register in the
region of Sardinia. A number of amendments, which the
applicant claims were substantial, were made to that                An action against the Commission of the European
system of aid subsequently by Regional Law No 11/98.                Communities was brought before the Court of First