CELEX: C1998/055/66
Language: en
Date: 1998-02-20 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 30 December 1997 by E against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-2/98)

C 55/34                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.2.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               relied upon against the applicant for the purposes of
                                                                          deducting, in respect of the period from 1 January
Ð declare the application admissible and well founded,                    1989 to 30 September 1995 inclusive, Community tax
                                                                          from the income earned by her from her activities as a
Ð rule that the defendants are liable for the damage
                                                                          freelance interpreter working for the defendant,
     suffered by the applicant,
Ð consequently, order the defendants jointly and                      Ð order the defendant to repay the Community tax paid
     severally to pay a sum provisionally fixed at                        by the applicant during the period from 1 January
     BEF 10 377 559, subject to increase or decrease during               1989 to 30 September 1995 inclusive, currently
     the course of the proceedings, together with 8 %                     estimated by the applicant as amounting to
     interest from 1 January 1993, the date on which the                  ECU 43 265, together with interest at the rate of 8 %
     damage was effectively suffered, to the date of                      or at the legal rate applicable,
     payment in full,
                                                                      Ð by way of subsidiary relief,
Ð order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the
     costs.                                                               order the defendant to compensate the applicant for
                                                                          the damage, currently estimated to amount to BEF
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       642 199, together with such further damage as may be
                                                                          specified, arising from additional claims by the Belgian
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                    tax and/or social security authorities in relation to the
Case T-611/97 (1).                                                        period from 1 January 1989 to 30 September 1995
                                                                          inclusive during which the defendant retained
(1) See page 33 of this Official Journal.                                 Community tax deducted from the applicant's income,
                                                                      Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 30 December 1997 by E against the
                                                                      The defendant was not entitled to levy Community tax.
         Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-2/98)                               1. By levying Community tax in respect of the applicant,
                           (98/C 55/66)                                   the Commission acted contrary to Community law, in
                                                                          particular Article 13 of the Protocol on the Privileges
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                            and Immunities and the rules implementing that
                                                                          provision together with Article 28 of the Merger
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                          Treaty, as well as the principle of legality; in so doing,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                          it misused, alternatively exceeded, its powers.
Instance of the European Communities on 30 December
1997 by E, residing in Brussels, represented by G. van der            2. For the reasons stated above, the defendant's refusal to
Wal, Advocaat with a right of audience before the Hoge                    repay to the applicant the Community tax paid by the
Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the                                latter since 1989 is unlawful; in addition, it is clearly
Netherlands), The Hague, and L. Y. J. M. Parret, of the                   under a duty to repay the sums paid by the applicant
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                which the latter was not liable to pay.
the Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                      3. Moreover, the refusal to repay the sums in question is
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          contrary to the principles of the protection of
Ð annul, or at least declare void, the decision contained                 legitimate expectations and of equality.
     in the defendant's letter of 31 October 1997 refusing
     the applicant's request for repayment of the                     In so far as the Court considers that it cannot order the
     Community tax paid by the applicant since 1 January              defendant to repay the Community tax paid by the
     1989,                                                            applicant, the applicant applies for a declaration by the
                                                                      Court that the defendant is liable for the damage suffered
Ð declare void Article 8 of the agreement with the                    by the applicant as a result of the defendant's unlawful
     A.I.I.C., alternatively rule that that Article may not be        conduct (Article 215 of the EC Treaty).