CELEX: C1996/133/66
Language: en
Date: 1996-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 13 March 1996 by Bernard Connolly against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-34/96)

No C 133/32            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4 . 5 . 96
 1 , in adopting its decision, the Commission breached the              represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre-Paul van
     essential procedural requirements of the EC Treaty, of             Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
     the legislation implementing it and of the fundamental             in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
     rules of procedure provided for therein, in that:                  Fort Rheinsheim .
     — it did not declare the aids granted to the Crédit
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
         Lyonnais in 1994 and 1995 illegal for want of
         notification,                                                  — annul the decision of the Disciplinary Board of
     — the summary nature of the advance notice given by it                 7 December 1 995 ,
         was such that third parties were not given an
                                                                        — order the Commission to pay all of the costs .
         opportunity to intervene, as appropriate, in the
         procedure for the examination of those aids;                   Pleas in law and main arguments
2 , the Commission infringed Articles 92 and 93 of the EC               The applicant, who is already contesting the decision
     Treaty and the Community guidelines on State aid for               suspending him under Article 88 of the Staff Regulations
     rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty issued for          and the decision to bring the matter before the Disciplinary
     the implementation thereof, in that:                               Board ( ! ), is applying in the present case for annulment of
     — it declared the aid compatible with the common                   the opinion delivered by the Board in the context of the
         market, notwithstanding that that aid does not                 disciplinary proceedings initiated on 6 September 1995 .
         contribute to the development of any sector of
         activity,                                                      In support of his application, he relies on the following
                                                                        pleas:
     — it    did   not    take   the    common       interest  into
         consideration,                                                 1 , the report of the appointing authority, whereby the
                                                                            matter was brought before the Disciplinary Board
     — it based its analysis of the compatibility of the aid                pursuant to Article 1 of Annex IX to the Staff
         under Article 92 ( 3 ) (c ) on the cost of that aid to the         Regulations, is improper, since it characterizes, that is to
         State and not on the amount of aid actually received               say, prejudges, the conduct alleged against the applicant,
         by the Crédit Lyonnais,                                            alleges as facts matters which have not been proven,
     — it did not seek any sound independent expert's                       contains allegations of fact which are manifestly
         report for the purposes of quantifying the amount of               incorrect, fails properly to provide a clear indication of
         the aid,                                                           the matters complained of and the circumstances in
                                                                            which they were allegedly committed, makes findings of
     — it committed a manifest error of assessment in                       fact in respect of matters on which the applicant has not
         quantifying the amount of the aid in a sum exceeding               been heard and, lastly, expatiates on the complaints set
         FF 32 billion, when that sum constitutes in itself the             out in the decision of 6 September 1995 ;
         largest sum ever granted by way of State aid,
                                                                        2 , the chairman of the Disciplinary Board did not appoint
     — it failed properly to assess the proportionality of the              one of its members to prepare a general report on the
         aid to the cost and advantages arising from the                    matter ;
         recovery of the Crédit Lyonnais,
                                                                        3 , the applicant was not advised of the hearing of witnesses
     — it declared the aid compatible notwithstanding that                  and did not receive the minutes of that hearing in good
         no restructuring plan was provided and the measures                time ;
         which the Commission required the Crédit Lyonnais
         to take cannot in any way be described as                     4 , the chairman took part in the deliberations of the
                                                                            Disciplinary Board;
         restructuring measures,
                                                                        5 , the opinion disregards the limits on the jurisdiction of
     — it did not propose any adequate counter-measures to
                                                                            the Disciplinary Board, breaches the right to a fair
         remedy the serious distortion of competition
                                                                            hearing and ignores the principle that proceedings
         resulting from the aid .
                                                                            should be conducted inter partes;
                                                                       6 , the opinion is insufficiently reasoned and breaches the
                                                                            conditions governing the application of Articles 11 , 12
                                                                            and 17 of the Staff Regulations, alternatively, is based
Action brought on 13 March 1996 by Bernard Connolly                         on an unlawful interpretation of those provisions;
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   7, in the alternative, the disciplinary measure proposed
                        ( Case T-34/96 )                                    by the Disciplinary Board breaches the principle of
                          ( 96/C 133/66 )                                   proportionality and is vitiated by a manifest error of
                                                                            assessment ;
                (Language of the case: French)                          8 , the proceedings are characterized in their entirety by a
                                                                            misuse of powers.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      (') Case T-203/95 ( OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p. 16 ).
Instance of the European Communities on 13 March 1 996
by Bernard Connolly, residing at Everberg ( Belgium ),