CELEX: C1999/048/61
Language: en
Date: 1999-02-20 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 11 December 1998 by Eduardo Peña Abizanda and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Case T-196/98)

C 48/28              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
Infringement of the internal rules regarding                      The Commission sought to justify its refusal to
competence and functioning of the European                        communicate the information at issue by relying on the
Parliament                                                        Code of conduct concerning public access to Commission
                                                                  documents and Article 7(1) and Article 9(3) of Council
                                                                  Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
Infringement of Article 2(4) of Annex VII to                      procedures for the award of public supply contracts.
the Staff Regulations and of the general
implementing provisions, as well as of
Annex V to the Staff Regulations                                  The applicant pleads in that regard breaches of the
                                                                  obligation to provide a statement of reasons and of the
                                                                  principles of equality and proportionality, as well as abuse
The applicant considers that the effect of the contested          of process and/or misuse of powers.
decision is a refusal to pay the allowance because the
calculation under Articles 5 to 9 of the general provisions
implementing the Staff Regulations was applied
incorrectly, as was Article 10 thereof. In particular, the
calculation made under Articles 5 to 9 should be annulled,
first, because the statement of reasons is inadequate and,
secondly, because the calculation is wrong in law and in          Action brought on 11 December 1998 by Eduardo PenÄa
fact. In the alternative, should that calculation be              Abizanda and Others v. Commission of the European
considered to be correct the applicant pleads that                                         Communities
Article 10 of the general implementing provisions should
                                                                                         (Case T-196/98)
have been applied.
                                                                                          (1999/C 48/61)
                                                                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                  An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 9 December 1998 by Scan Office
                                                                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
Design S.A. against the Commission of the European
                                                                  Instance on 11 December 1998 by Eduardo PenÄa
                        Communities
                                                                  Abizanda and Others, residing in Belgium and
                      (Case T-194/98)                             Luxembourg, represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and
                                                                  BegonÄa Uriarte Valiente, of the Barcelona and Madrid
                       (1999/C 48/60)
                                                                  Bars respectively, with an address for service in Brussels at
                                                                  78 Avenue d'Auderghem.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                  The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance
An action against the Commission of the European                  should:
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 9 December
1998 by Scan Office Design S.A., the registered office of         Ð annul the implied Commission decision contained in
which is in Brussels, represented by Benoît Mertens, of the           the letter from the Director General of Personnel of
Brussels Bar, and Denis Philippe, of the Luxembourg Bar,              9 September 1998;
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter's
Chambers, 47 Grand-Rue.                                           Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
Ð annul the contested decision;                                   The annulment is sought of the letter from the
                                                                  Commission Director General of Personnel of 9 September
                                                                  1998 indicating the defendant's approval of the content of
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                  the draft Royal Decree on the transfer of rights under
                                                                  public social security schemes to the social security scheme
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                for officials of the European Communities. That approval
                                                                  will entail the adoption in the near future of legislation by
                                                                  the Spanish Government, which, in the applicants'
The Commission refused the applicant's request for                opinion, will only partially bring to an end the persistent
communication of certain information concerning the bid           infringement by the Kingdom of Spain of the provisions of
made by the successful tenderer (Frezza Belgium S.A.) in          the Staff Regulations concerning transfer to the
the context of an invitation to tender for the supply of          Community pension scheme of the rights acquired by
office furniture, in which the applicant had also                 Community officials and other servants under national
participated.                                                     schemes.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 48/29
As regards, specifically, the alleged infringements of              1998 by Tate & Lyle plc, represented by R. Fowler QC
Community law which will continue notwithstanding the               and A. L. Morris, with an address for service in
draft Royal Decree at issue in these proceedings, the               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11
applicants mention the following:                                   Rue Goethe.
Ð the scope is limited to officials who were engaged after
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
    31 December 1985, resulting in discrimination against
    those Spanish officials who began their service before
    Spain's accession;
                                                                    Ð annul Article 3 of Commission Decision of 14 October
                                                                        1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85
Ð Breach of the obligation attaching to the legislating                 (Case No IV/F-3/33.708 Ð British Sugar plc, Case No
    State by virtue of its responsibility for infringement of           IV/F-3/33.709 Ð Tate & Lyle plc, Case No
    Community law to redress the damage caused, since,                  IV/F-3/33.710 Ð Napier Brown & Company Ltd,
    in the formula laid down for calculating the actuarial              Case No IV/F-3/33.711 Ð James Budgett Sugars Ltd)
    equivalent, the retirement pension which would accrue               in so far as it concerns Tate & Lyle, and
    as at the date of joining the EC is updated to the date
    of calculation by reference to the Consumer Price
    Index prevailing in Spain during those years. In the
                                                                    Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.
    applicants' opinion, in order to redress the damage
    caused to officials and to conform with its domestic
    legislation, the Administration should, at least, place
    them in the same situation as Spanish pensioners,               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    applying to them the same enhancements as the latter
    have enjoyed over the last twelve years.
                                                                    By Article 1 of the contested Decision, the Commission
                                                                    declared that British Sugar plc, Tate & Lyle plc, Napier
Ð Partial breach of the obligation contained in
                                                                    Brown & Company Ltd and James Budgett Sugars Ltd
    Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations
                                                                    (the Parties') had infringed Article 85(1) by participating
    through failure to make provision for the transfer of
                                                                    in an agreement and/or concerted practice the object of
    the pension rights of officials who have been
                                                                    which was to restrict competition by the coordination of
    self-employed.
                                                                    the parties' pricing policy on the market for industrial
                                                                    sugar in Great Britain. By Article 2, the Commission
                                                                    declared that British Sugar plc and Tate & Lyle had
Ð The Draft Royal Decree makes no reference
                                                                    infringed Article 85(1) by participating in an agreement
    whatsoever to the transfer of rights accrued during
                                                                    and/or concerted practice the object of which was to
    secondment or unpaid leave, nor does it deal with
                                                                    restrict competition by the coordination of the parties'
    transfers from the Community social security system
                                                                    pricing policy on the market for retail sugar in Great
    to a national scheme, contrary to the requirements of
                                                                    Britain. By Article 3, the Commission imposed a fine of
    Article 11(1) and (3) of Annex VIII to the Staff
                                                                    ECU 39,6 million on British Sugar plc, ECU 7 million on
    Regulations.
                                                                    Tate & Lyle, ECU 1,8 million on Napier Brown &
                                                                    Company Ltd, and ECU 1,8 million on James Budgett
Ð The Draft Royal Decree, finally, infringes Article 8 of           Sugars Ltd.
    Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in so far as it
    includes certain particulars of an actuarial nature.
                                                                    The applicant submits that the fine of ECU 7 million
                                                                    imposed on it by Article 3 of the contested Decision
                                                                    should be annulled on the following grounds:
                                                                    Ð the Commission, in applying the Commission's
Action brought on 18 December 1998 by Tate & Lyle plc                   Leniency Notice (1) by analogy, failed to apply it
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    correctly and imposed an excessive fine on the
                      (Case T-202/98)                                   applicant;
                       (1999/C 48/62)
                                                                    Ð contrary to the Commission's statement at
               (Language of the case: English)                          paragraph 217 of the contested Decision, the applicant
                                                                        did maintain continuous and complete cooperation
                                                                        with the Commission throughout the investigation,
An action against the Commission of the European                        and therefore fulfilled the substantive requirements of
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       point (d) of Section B of the Leniency Notice, thereby
Instance of the European Communities on 18 December                     meeting all the requirements of the said Section B;