CELEX: C2002/003/76
Language: en
Date: 2002-01-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-271/01: Action brought on 23 October 2001 by José Manuel López Cejudo against Commission of the European Communities

C 3/44                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.1.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     order the defendant to pay damages in the form of default
                                                                               interest on the percentage of tax abatement and the
                                                                               percentage of the expatriation allowance, at the rate of
The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2001) 1764                        6,75 % per annum from November 2000 until such time
final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the common                   as the amounts due are fully paid;
market the tax reductions arising from the tenth addendum to
Norma Foral (Regional Law) No 7/1997 of 22 December
1997, which provides for a tax credit of 45 % of the investment          —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
in new fixed material assets in excess of PTA 2 500 million
(EUR 15 025 303) made by undertakings in the Territorio
Histórico de Guipúzcoa.
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
applicant are identical with those put forward in Case
T-225/01.
                                                                         Until the adoption of the contested decision, the applicant was
                                                                         in receipt of dependent child and education allowances in
                                                                         respect of his four children. Those allowances were paid in his
                                                                         name and on his behalf to his wife, an official of the European
                                                                         Parliament whom he is in the process of divorcing. Custody of
                                                                         the children has been awarded to his wife, who receives
                                                                         alimony payments from him.
Action brought on 23 October 2001 by José Manuel
López Cejudo against Commission of the European Com-
                            munities
                                                                         In October 2000, the applicant learned from his monthly
                        (Case T-271/01)                                  salary statement that the Commission refused to grant him
                                                                         dependent child and education allowances in respect of his
                                                                         four children and, consequently, to take into account such
                         (2002/C 3/76)                                   family allowances for purposes of tax abatement and expatri-
                                                                         ation allowance as from July 1999.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         As a result of the complaint lodged in July 2001 by the
                                                                         applicant against that decision, the Commission acknowledged
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                that he shared in the actual maintenance of the children and,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               accordingly, decided to grant him, as from August 2001,
European Communities on 23 October 2001 by José Manuel                   dependent child and education allowances, with full effects
López Cejudo, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges              with regard to tax abatement and expatriation allowances, to
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.                                    be shared with his wife, in accordance with an allocation
                                                                         formula which the defendant has to agree with the European
                                                                         Parliament. Accordingly, entitlement to the allowances in issue
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              was not granted to the applicant for the period from October
                                                                         2000 to July 2001.
—     annul the decision contained in the applicant’s salary
      statement for October 2000, refusing him entitlement to
      dependent child and education allowances in respect of
                                                                         The applicant takes the view that the contested decision:
      his four children and, consequently, to take into account
      such family allowances for purposes of tax abatement
      and expatriation allowance since July 1999, including in
                                                                         —     infringes the principle of legality, inasmuch as the
      respect of the period October 2000 to September 2001,
                                                                               Commission itself acknowledged that the arguments put
      and, in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 16 July
                                                                               forward by the applicant challenging his salary statement
      2001 taken as a result of the complaint;
                                                                               for October 2000 were well founded, but only made a
                                                                               decision regarding the future;
—     order the defendant to pay damages in the form of default
      interest on the amounts improperly withheld by the
      defendant pursuant to the salary statement for October             —     infringes the principle that reasons for decisions must be
      2000, at the rate of 6,75 % per annum from November                      stated, inasmuch as the Commission does not explain the
      2000 until such time as full payment is effected;                        reason why it limited the effects of its positive decision;
 ---pagebreak--- 5.1.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 3/45
—     infringes Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Annex VII to the Staff            Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Innova Privat-
      Regulations, Opinion No 178/87 of the board of the                 Akademie GmbH against the Commission of the European
      heads of administration of 3 December 1987 and                                               Communities
      Articles 3(4) and 4 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC)
      No 260/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying                                         (Case T-273/01)
      down the conditions and procedure for applying the
      tax for the benefit of the European Communities, as
      interpreted by the Court of Justice, inasmuch as the                                         (2002/C 3/78)
      applicant actually maintains his children and is entitled
      to have benefits, which are paid to his wife in the name                              (Language of the case: German)
      and on behalf of both parents, taken into account when
      calculating tax and calculating the expatriation allowance.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 22 October 2001 by Innova Privat-
                                                                         Akademie GmbH, Berlin, represented by Thomas Kreutzfield,
                                                                         lawyer.
Action brought on 15 October 2001 by Philip Morris
International Inc. against the Commission of the European                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           Communities
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant
                                                                               Euro 104 790 together with interest of 5 % above
                         (Case T-272/01)                                       the basic rate under paragraph 1 of the Diskontsatz-
                                                                               Überleitungs-Gesetz of 9.6.1998 of the Federal Republic
                           (2002/C 3/77)                                       of Germany from the date on which the proceedings
                                                                               became pending;
                   (Language of the case: English)                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Pleas in law and main arguments
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 October 2001 by Philip Morris
International Inc., represented by Mr Jacques Derenne and                The applicant applied via a German bank for promotional
Mr Eric Morgan de Rivery of Liederkerke Siméon Wessing                   funds from the European Commission in order to finance a
Houthoff, Brussels (Belgium).                                            project within the framework of the EU ECIP promotional
                                                                         programme. The subject matter of the applicant’s project was
                                                                         a feasibility study on a joint venture in the area of professional
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              training in India.
—     annul the Contested Act resulting in the filing of the
                                                                         In March 1999 the bank informed the applicant that the
      Complaint on 6 August 2001 before the New York
                                                                         application had been approved with a subsidy of
      District Court against the applicant, as publicly
                                                                         Euro 115 328. The Commission had given that information
      announced by the Commission in Press Release
                                                                         to the bank infomally by telephone. However, the applicant
      IP/01/1193 of 6 August 2001;
                                                                         subsequently received no further information from the Com-
                                                                         mission.
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                         In 2000 the ECIP project was halted on account of the
                                                                         irregularities within the Commission which had come to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          light in 1999. Despite the above-mentioned agreement, the
                                                                         applicant received no funds from the ECIP project.
The applicant in the present case is the same undertaking as in
case T-377/00 (1). The facts, grounds and main arguments are             The applicant, which, in reliance on the promotion of the
similar to those arising in this case.                                   project, had concluded a contract with a consultancy firm with
                                                                         respect to the feasibility study, claims damages for the loss
                                                                         which it has allegedly incurred and claims that the failure to
(1) Philip Morris International/Commission (OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001,        pay the promotional funds is unlawful and caused the loss
    p. 23).                                                              suffered by it.