CELEX: C1996/064/33
Language: en
Date: 1996-03-02 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 13 December 1995 by Roger Tremblay, Harry Kestenberg and the Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs (SELL) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-224/95)

2 . 3 . 96            1 EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 64/ 15
Action brought by Antonio Angelini against the                        objective fact of the person concerned being obliged to
Commission of the European Communities on 5 December                  transfer his residence elsewhere in order to comply with
                                 1995                                 Article 20 of the Staff Regulations . The latter does not
                         ( Case T-222/95                              impose any further requirement or take any other factor into
                                                                      consideration .
                            ( 96/C 64/32
                                                                      In the applicant's submission, whilst the case-law has indeed
                (Language of the case: Italian)                       clarified the scope of the provisions of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                      it has done so in situations where legal requirements were
                                                                      not met ( failure to transfer residence or family property,
                                                                      transfer at the official 's own request and in his personal
An action against the Commission of the European                      interest, etc .) or in situations involving fraud . That is far
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     removed from the present case, in which there were no
Instance of the European Communities on 5 December                    irregularities regarding the transfer of the applicant and his
1995 by Antonio Angelini , a former official of the                   family to another State , the renting of a home in Germany
Commission of the European Communities, resident at                   and the automatic return to Italy .
Ranco (Varese ), represented by Giuseppe Marchesini,
Advocate with the right of audience before the Court of
Cassation of the Italian Republic, with an address for service        Finally, the applicant accuses the Commission of failing to
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10                  take the judgment in Case T-508/93 Mancini into account in
Rue Mathias Hardt .                                                   the present case .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the measure whereby he was refused a
     resettlement allowance on resuming his duties at
     Ispra,
                                                                      Action brought on 13 December 1995 by Roger Tremblay,
                                                                      Harry Kestenberg and the Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux
— order the Commission to pay him the sums due under                  de Loisirs ( SELL ) against the Commission of the European
     Article 5 ( 2 ) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations or                                     Communities
     those resulting from a fresh settlement of the amounts
     due to him under Article 38 of the Staff Regulations,                                     ( Case T-224/95 )
                                                                                                   96/C 64/33 )
— order interest at 8 % to be paid from the date of the claim
     until the date of settlement,                                                     (Language of the case: French)
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 13 December
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    1995 by Roger Tremblay, residing at Vernantes ( France ),
                                                                      Harry Kestenberg, residing at Saint Andre Les Vergers
The applicant, a scientific and technical official of the              ( France ) and the Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de
Commission at the Ispra establishment of the Joint Research           Loisirs ( SELL ), established in Paris ( France ), represented by
Centre, maintains that the refusal to pay him a resettlement          Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
allowance on his return from a period of service abroad in            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4
                                                                      Rue Beatrix de Bourbon .
the Iter Home Central Team of Garching was unlawful . The
contested decision assumes that he neither encountered any
particular difficulties in resettling in his place of origin, nor
needed to carry out a fresh removal , having returned to his          The applicants claim that the Court should :
own home in Italy .
                                                                      — annul the Decision of the Commission of 13 October
The applicant first stresses the contradiction in the fact that,            1995 , in that it rejects the complaint,
although he had changed his residence twice , he was paid the
daily allowance on his return to Ispra but not the                    — consequently, order the Commission to carry out the
corresponding resettlement allowance in addition .                          necessary investigations in order to establish evidence of
                                                                            the agreement,
Moreover, the provisions of the Staff Regulations
concerning the installation allowance refer exclusively to the         — order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 64/ 16           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2 . 3 . 96
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Action brought on 15 December 1995 by AssiDoman Kraft
                                                                      Products AB and six other wood pulp companies against the
                                                                                   Commission of the European Communities
The applicants, two operators of discotheques established in
France and the trade organization of which they are                                             ( Case T-227/95 )
members, contest the Decision of the Commission of                                                 ( 96/C 64/34 )
13 October 1995 , which in their view does not comply with
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 January in                             (Language of the case: English)
Case T-5/93 Tremblay . In that judgment, the Court of First
Instance annulled the Decision of the Commission of
12 November 1992 concerning an agreement between the                  An action against the Commission of the European
copyright-management societies in the other Member                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
States, which had resulted in Sacem abusing its dominant              Instance of the European Communities on 15 December
position by imposing excessive and discriminatory tariff              1995 by AssiDoman Kraft Products AB and six other wood
levels, in so far as that Decision 'rejects the applicants '          pulp companies, represented by John Pheasant, Solicitor
allegation that the market has been partitioned as a result of        and Christophe Raux, Avocat, with an address for service in
an alleged agreement beteween Societe des Auteurs,                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 1 1 Rue
Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique and the                           Goethe .
copyright-management societies in the other Member
States '.
                                                                      The applicants claim that the Court should:
After resuming, in a purely formal manner, its examination            — annul the Commission Decision of 4 October 1995 ,
of that part of the complaint, the Commission officially
rejected it on 23 June 1995 on the basis of Article 6 of              — order the Commission to take all necessary steps to
Regulation ( EEC ) No 99/63 . Despite the observations                     comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in
submitted by the applicants, the defendant institution                     Joined Cases . C-89, 104 , 114, 116 , 117 and
repeated its position in the contested Decision . According to             125—129/85 A. Ahlstrom Oy v. Commission of
the Commission, it is solely for the national courts to assess             31 March 1993 and, in particular, to repay to the
whether a concerted practice exists; they may of course                    applicants the fines paid by each of them or their
resort to a reference for a preliminary ruling under                       predecessors in title respectively, in the amounts set out
Article 177 .                                                              at Annex 6 thereto,
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay interest on the said sums
The applicants maintain, first, that it is apparent from the               at
contested Decision that the Commission has not complied
with the requirements of the Court of First Instance and that                ( i ) the prevailing EMCF and EMI rates plus 1,5%
it did not in fact proceed to carry out an inquiry and the                          from the date on which the fines were paid by the
active investigations necessitated by the abovementioned                            Swedish addressees; or
judgment of 24 January 1995 . It has not, therefore,
complied with the obligations incumbent on an institution                  ( ii ) the prevailing base lending rate of the Banque
whose Act has been declared void, by taking the necessary                           Nationale de Belgique plus 1 % from the date on
measures under Article 176 to comply with the                                       which the fines were paid by the Swedish
judgment.                                                                           addressees,
The Commission was penalized by the Court because what                     in the amounts set out in Annex 9 to the application and
it did, and what it claimed to have done, was inadequate. It               continuing until the principal sum of the fines is repaid
was not open to it merely to act in the same way after the                 by the Commission, and
judgment was given as before . The Court annulled the
 Decision of the Commission because it did not constitute an          — order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs .
 adequate response to the complaint of partitioning made
 against the agreement between copyright-management                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 societies . The Court did not annul the Decision and remit
 the matter to the Commission merely for that institution to          The applicants, or their predecessors in title, are among the
 refrain from carrying out an inquiry which, by reason of             addressees of the Commission Decision 85/202/EEC of
 their limited territorial jurisdiction, the national courts do        19 December 1984 relating to a proceeding under Article 85
 not have the means to undertake .
                                                                      of the EC Treaty (IV/29.725 — Wood Pulp ) by which the
                                                                       Commission imposed fines ranging from ECU 50 000 to
 The applicant further regards that conduct as a breach of the         ECU 500 000 . The applicants, who had never accepted the
 duty to provide a statement of reasons, as well as a misuse of        allegations of infringements, did not bring an application for
 powers .                                                              annulment of this Decision and paid the fines to the
                                                                       Commission. Upon application by other addressees of the
                                                                       Decision, the Court of Justice, by judgment of 31 March
                                                                       1993 in Joined Cases 89, 104 , 114 , 116 , 117 and 125 to
                                                                       129/85 , A. Ahlstrom Oy v. Commission, a number of the