CELEX: C1996/233/30
Language: en
Date: 1996-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 31 May 1996 by Francis Alan Clarke against the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (Case T-85/96)

10 . 8 . 96          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 233/ 17
 Action brought on 29 May 1996 by Cipeke, Comércio e                  The applicant claims that the statement of reasons for the
 Industria de Papel , Ld .a against the Commission of the             decision at issue is contradictory, equivocal , inconsistent,
                    European Communities                               incomplete and inadequate .
                        ( Case T-84/96 )
                                                                      Moreover, the abovementioned statement of reasons is
                          ( 96/C 233 /29 )                            neither clear, explicit or relevant, which is tantamount to a
                                                                      failure to state reasons .
              (Language of tbe case: Portuguese)
                                                                      Thus, the contested act infringed essential procedural
                                                                      requirements ( Article 190 of the EC Treaty ), which entails
                                                                      its annulment .
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Instance of the European Communities on 29 May 1996 by
 Cipeke, Comércio e Industria de Papel , Ld .'1 , whose
 registered office is at 22-5"Esq Avenida Sidonia Pais,
 Lisbon, represented by Miguel Ferrâo Castelo Branco, of the
 Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             Action brought on 31 May 1996 by Francis Alan Clarke
the Chambers of François Brouxel , 6 Rue Zithe,                       against the European Centre for the Development of
 Luxembourg L-2763 .                                                                  Vocational Training ( Cedefop )
                                                                                              ( Case T-85/96 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                                    ( 96/C 233 /30 )
annul Commission Decision C(95 ) 543 of 12 December                                  (Language of tbe case: German)
 1995 , with all the legal consequences such annulment
entails .                                                             An action against the European Centre for the Development
                                                                      of Vocational Training was brought before the Court of
                                                                      First Instance of the European Communities on 31 May
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   1996 by Francis Alan Clarke, of Eischen ( Luxembourg ),
                                                                     represented by Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne and
The Departamento para Asuntos do Fundo Social Europeu                 Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg care of
( DAFSE, the Portuguese ESF agency ) applied to the                   Francis Alan Clarke , 30 Rue de la Gare , Eischen .
Commission of the European Communities for assistance
from the European Social Fund ( ESF ) ( File ESF 871012P 1 ).        The applicant claims that the Court should :
The application for assistance was made on behalf of Partex
and not the other 10 undertakings , which include the                — annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop of 5 April
applicant. The applicant, inasmuch as it was a beneficiary                1996 , in the form of the decision of 22 April 1996 , and
and in the context of the assistance granted , carried out two            the decision of 21 May 1996 ,
paid vocational training courses in graphic arts . The
relevant curricula and budgets were approved by the ESF .            — order Cedefop to pay the costs .
Once the courses were completed , the applicant submitted
within the prescribed period its ' Quantitative and                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Qualitative Evaluation Report' and awaited payment of the
balance it believed to be due to it . On examination of the
                                                                     The applicant states that he has been employed since 1 977 in
final payment claim, the Commission informed the                     the service of Cedefop , the seat of which was moved on
Portuguese State that it was reducing the ESF assistance              1 September 1995 from Berlin to Thessaloniki . In July 1995
relating to file ESF 871012P 1 . The applicant, in its capacity      the Statistical Office of the European Communities
as a beneficiary of ESF assistance in the context of file ESF        ( Eurostat ) agreed with the defendant that the applicant was
871012P 1 , brought an action for annulment ( C-189/90 )             to be seconded to Eurostat in Luxembourg, pending his
and , on 4 June 1992 , the Court of Justice annulled the             transfer to that establishment at the earliest possible date .
Commission's decision .
                                                                     Since, at the time of Cedefop's relocation on 1 September
                                                                     1995 , the criteria for application of interinstitutional
Subsequently, also following examination of the final                mobility had not yet been established , the applicant was
payment claim for the balance, the Commission adopted                seconded to Eurostat in Luxembourg until further notice by
Decision C(95 ) 543 of 12 December 1995 , according to               decision of the Director of 31 July 1995 . It was not until
which the applicant was to repay to the ESF Esc 4 267 218 .          February 1996 that the Commission made it possible for
The Commission adopted the abovementioned decision ,                 Cedefop employees to avail themselves of the mobility
now under challenge , on the grounds , set forth in letter           arrangements . The applicant's request for an extension of
No 6045 of 24 March 1994, addressed to the Portuguese                his secondment to Eurostat until his intervening transfer to
State, that it considered that part of the ESF assistance was        that establishment was implicitly refused by the contested
not used according to the conditions laid down in the                decision of the Director of Cedefop of 5 April 19 96 . That
approval decision and that it did not consider eligible              decision, which was notified to the applicant on 1 1 April
expenditure in an amount of Esc 1 9 725 390 incurred by the          1996 , required him to take up his duties in Thessaloniki on
applicants in respect of the training courses .                      2 May 1 996 .
 ---pagebreak---  No C 233 / 18          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10 . 8 . 96
 On 22 April 1996 the Director decided, on the basis of a               by Dr Gerrit Schohe and Dr Philipp von Dietze,
 communication from Eurostat, to extend the applicant's                 Rechtsanwàlte, Hamburg, with an address for service in
 secondment to Eurostat until 31 May 1 996 . The applicant's            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden , 34b Rue
 application of 8 May 1996 for a prolongation of that                   Philippe II .
 extension until 30 September 1996 was refused by the
 Director, by letter of 21 May 1996 from Cedefop's head of             The applicants claim that the Court should :
 administration .
                                                                       — annul decision K(96 ) 841 final of the Commission of
 The applicant maintains that the contested decisions are                   13 March 1996 on special depreciation allowances for
 illegal , on the grounds set out below.                                    aircraft pursuant to paragraph 82 f of the German
                                                                            Einkommensteuerdurchfuhrungsverordnung ( income
 In particular :                                                            tax implementation regulation ), inasmuch as that
                                                                            decision concerns the extension of the validity of that
— the decisions were adopted in breach of essential
                                                                            provision from 1 January 1995 to 31 December
     procedural requirements . No adequate statement of
                                                                            1999 ,
     reasons for their adoption was provided,
— the contested decisions are illegal from a substantive               — order the Commission to pay the costs .
     standpoint, since they breach the general principles of
      Community law applicable to the public service . The             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     applicant complains in particular of the following
      breaches :                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                       in     Case T-25/96         Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher
     — breach of the agreements concluded between                      Luftfahrt-Unternehmen and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft
           Cedefop and the applicant and of the guarantees             mbH v . Commission .
           given by the former to the latter, and , consequently,
           infringement of his rights,
     — breach of the principle that the administration's acts
           are binding on itself, and of the principle of the
          protection of legitimate expectations, since                Action brought on 7 June 1996 by Gisèle Lienard against
           Cedefop's decisions contravened the guidelines laid                the Commission of the European Communities
          down with regard to its future conduct, and                                        ( Case T-88/96 )
                                                                                               ( 96/C 233 /32 )
     — breach of the general duty of an employer to have
          regard for the welfare and interests of his employees,
          since the decisions failed to take account of the                           (Language of tbe case: Frencb)
          applicant's legitimate interests,
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
     — breach of the principle of equality of treatment,              Communities was brought before the Court of First
          since , unlike those persons who are remaining in           Instance of the European Communities on 7 June 1996 by
          Berlin, the applicant has not been given credit for his     Gisèle Lienard, residing at Woluwé-Saint-Etienne
          years of service .                                           ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry
                                                                      Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an
For the same reasons, the decision to transfer the applicant's        address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
place of employment with Cedefop to Thessaloniki from                 Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener .
3 June 1996 was illegal .
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      — annul the Commission's decision of 30 October 1995
                                                                           terminating with effect from 1 November 1995 the
                                                                           arrangement whereby the applicant was granted the
Action brought on 31 May 1996 by Arbeitsgemeinschaft
                                                                           additional tax abatement for dependent children .
deutscher Luftfahrt-Unternehmen und Hapag-Lloyd
Fluggesellschaft mbH against the Commission of the                    — order the Commission to pay the costs .
                      European Communities
                          ( Case T-86/96 )                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                            ( 96/C 233/31 )
                                                                      The applicant, who is the ex-wife of a Commission official ,
                                                                      contests the Commission's decision granting her former
                 (Language of the case: German)                       husband the additional tax abatement provided for under
                                                                      the second subparagraph of Article 3 ( 4 ) of Council
An action against the Commission of the European                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 260/68 of 29 February 1968 laying
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     down the conditions and procedure for applying the tax for
Instance of the European Communities on 31 May 1996 by                the benefit of the European Communities .
the Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher Luftfahrt-Unternehmen,
Bonn, and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH ,                          The applicant points out that on 2 1 November 1 994 she and
Langenhagen ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented              her former husband signed pre-divorce agreements by