CELEX: C1998/299/66
Language: en
Date: 1998-09-26 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 13 July 1998 by Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen against the Council of the European Union (Case T-104/98)

26.9.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 299/37
    down a double ceiling on the number of years to be              Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
    credited which is not envisaged by the legislature,
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð that unjust enrichment has occurred in this case since,
    by entering as income in the Community budget that              The pleas in law and main arguments are those already
    part of the amount not taken into account under the             raised in Case T-103/98 Kristensen v. Council (1).
    Community pension scheme, the defendant has
    enriched itself without any legal basis.                        (1) See page 36 of this Offical Journal.
Finally, the applicant contends that the principle of equal
treatment has been infringed. The Commission as well as
the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions refund to
officials assigned to their service that part of the amount         Action brought on 13 July 1998 by Rainer Dumont du
of the rights transferred not taken into account in the                        Voitel v. Council of the European Union
Community pension scheme. The Parliament does not                                            (Case T-105/98)
restrict the number of years to be credited and therefore
may take into account a number of years of pensionable                                        (98/C 299/67)
service far exceeding the period of affiliation to national
schemes. Only the Council restricts the years to be                                 (Language of the case: French)
credited and refuses to refund that part of the amount not
taken into account in the Community pension scheme.
The difference in treatment accorded by the various                 An action against the Council of the European Union was
Community institutions to officials who are in the same             brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
position thus infringes the prohibition of discrimination.          Communities on 13 July 1998 by Rainer Dumont du
                                                                    Voitel, of Vossem-Tervuren (Belgium), represented by
                                                                    Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten and Jacques Sambon, of the
                                                                    Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                    the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2, rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 13 July 1998 by Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen
         against the Council of the European Union
                                                                    1. declare the action admissible and well-founded;
                       (Case T-104/98)
                        (98/C 299/66)                               2. allow the action, annul the disputed decision and
                                                                         order the Council to pay the costs.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Council of the European Union was             The applicant, an official employed by the Council,
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          challenges that institution's decision of 27 April 1998
Communities on 13 July 1988 by Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen,                 relating to the procedures whereby officials and employees
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,              of the General Secretariat of the Council may be allowed
VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise                   access to classified information held by the Council (1).
Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service        The first citation in the preamble to that decision refers to
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,              Article 151(3) of the Treaty establishing the European
30, rue de Cessange.                                                Community and the third citation refers to the declaration
                                                                    in the Annex to the Final Act of the Treaty of Amsterdam
                                                                    on enhanced cooperation between the European Union
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         and the Western European Union.
                                                                    The applicant points out that the decision requires that
Ð annul the Council decision of 6 October 1997 refusing             officials authorised to have access to classified information
    the request for refund of that part of the pension              obtain specific permission which is granted after security
    rights transferred to the Community pensions regime             screening has been carried out by the competent national
    which was not taken into consideration in the                   authorities of the Member States. The decision challenged
    calculation of the pensionable service to be taken into         by the applicant also seeks to impose new obligations and
    account pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the          confer new prerogatives on the appointing authority and
    Staff Regulations,                                              to limit its jurisdiction.