CELEX: C1999/160/44
Language: en
Date: 1999-06-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-57/99: Action brought on 26 February 1999 by Albert Nardone against the Commission of the European Communities

5.6.1999               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 160/23
    of interest since 1991 at a rate below the market rate on           Action brought on 26 February 1999 by Albert Nardone
    the social insurance contributions due. A private creditor            against the Commission of the European Communities
    would have behaved completely differently from the social
    insurance authorities, and the non-recovery of the social                                    (Case T-57/99)
    insurance contributions therefore constitutes State aid,
                                                                                                (1999/C 160/44)
— infringement of article 92(1) of the EC Treaty, in that the
    non-recovery by the social security authorities of default
    surcharges was held not to constitute State aid,                                       (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— wrongful limitation of State aid to the financial advantage           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    accruing to Sniace as a result of the charging of interest by       European Communities on 26 February 1999 by Albert
    Fogasa on the sums due to it at a rate below the market             Nardone, residing at Piétrain (Belgium), represented by Georges
    rate. A private creditor faced with the acute liquidity             Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an
    problems of Sniace would not have tolerated that compa-             address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciare Myson SARL,
    ny’s failure, for years on end, to comply with the redemp-          30 rue de Cessange.
    tion plan contained in the repayment agreements; instead,
    it would have foreclosed the mortgage provided as security          The applicant claims that the Court should:
    and would, in view of Fogasa’s prior-ranking position in
    the event of the bankruptcy of Sniace, have simply                  — order the defendant to pay damages assessed provisionally
    accepted Sniace’s insolvency. The non-recovery of the                    at BEF 25 000 000 by way of compensation for material
    outstanding sums due to Fogasa therefore constitutes State               damage and at BEF 7 500 000 by way of compensation
    aid, as does                                                             for non-material damage,
                                                                        — annul, in so far as necessary, the implied decision of the
— the fact that Fogasa refrained from enforcing its entitlement              appointing authority rejecting the applicant’s request of
    to default interest,                                                     16 October 1997 as well as the explicit decision of the
                                                                             appointing authority rejecting the applicant’s complaint of
— manifest error of assessment in the application of article                 30 November 1998,
    92(1) of the EC Treaty, in that the element of aid was
    limited to the difference between the interest rate actually        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
    agreed and the market rate on the ground that the scope
    of the unlawful aid was difficult to determine,
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
— failure to comply with the obligation to provide a state-             The applicant has already brought an action (1) seeking the
    ment of reasons under article 190 of the EC Treaty, in that         annulment of the decision taken by the appointing authority
                                                                        following a request for recognition of an occupational disease
                                                                        (asbestosis) allegedly contracted during his employment in the
    — no reasons have been given as to why the non-recovery             Berlaymont building in Brussels and, in so far as necessary, the
        of sums due to the social security institution and              annulment of the implied decision rejecting the complaint
        Fogasa were regarded as corresponding to market                 lodged by the applicant against that decision.
        conditions,
                                                                        The present action seeks compensation for the damage suffered
    — the decision is in itself contradictory, because, in              by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s misconduct,
        the part of the decision dealing with the law, the              irrespective of whether or not the social security scheme
        Commission assessed the conditions of the debt                  organised by Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and by
        rescheduling agreements concluded with the social               the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European
        insurance authorities and with Fogasa as not corre-             Communities against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational
        sponding to market conditions, yet in the operative             Disease is applied.
        part of the decision it limited the element of aid to the
        interest rate difference, and                                   The applicant is of the view that, by operation of the ordinary
                                                                        law relating to liability, he may claim damages despite the
                                                                        services received by him under Article 73, following the
    — the reasons contained in the part of the decision                 decision of 29 May 1997 concerning his occupational disease.
        dealing with the law did not contain any examination
        of the question whether, in the context of the third
                                                                        In his view, the Commission was guilty of illegal misconduct (2)
        debt rescheduling agreement, the social insurance
                                                                        which provides a ground for the Commission to be held liable
        authorities refrained from insisting on the repayment
                                                                        and for the payment of the damages sought.
        of social insurance contributions by 24 monthly
        instalments.
                                                                        (1) T-27/98 Nardone v. Commission (OJ C 94, 28.3.1998, p. 38).
                                                                        (2) See Case T-27/98.