CELEX: C1996/318/33
Language: en
Date: 1996-10-26 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 15 August 1996 by Preussag Stahl AG against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-129/96)

26 . 10 . 96          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 318/ 17
Action brought on 14 August 1996 by Giorgio Lebedef                  which cannot supersede the Staff Regulations or the general
  against the Commission of the European Communities                 principles governing the right of association, one of the
                       ( Case T-128/ 96 )                            fundamental expressions of which is the free circulation of
                                                                     information and dissemination of written material .
                         ( 96/C 318/32 )
                                                                     It is also alleged that the Commission acted contrary to the
                (Language of the case: French)                       principle of the equal treatment of trade unions .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 14 August 1996
by Giorgio Lebedef, residing at Senningerberg
( Luxembourg ), represented by Gilles Bounéou, of the
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Action brought on 15 August 1996 by Preussag Stahl AG
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 15 avenue du
Bois .
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                             ( Case T-129/96 )
                                                                                               ( 96/C 318/33 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the Commission 's decision of 26 October                                     (Language of the case: German)
     1995 ,
— annul in consequence the decision of 10 May 1996 ,                 An action against the Commission of the European
     which was notified on 14 May 1996 ,                             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 15 August 1996
— order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of               by Preussag Stahl AG, Salzgitter ( Federal Republic of
     Bfrs 200 000 by way of compensation, that being the             Germany ),        represented     by      Jochim    Sedemund ,
     amount which, in the applicant's estimation, is                 Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in
     equivalent to the damage suffered, or any other amount          Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand '
                                                                     rue .
     to be decided by the Court,
— order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
     incurred in the proceedings .
                                                                     — annul the Commission 's decision of 29 Mai 1996
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                        concerning State aid to the Walzwerk Ilsenburg GmbH
                                                                           ( COM(96 ) 1642 final ),
The applicant, who is Secretary-General of the independent
trade union Action et Defense — Luxembourg ( A&D—L ),                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
challenges the Commission's refusal to allow the
distribution by its internal mail service of a leaflet common
to the four trade unions, the FFPE, the FPE, the SFIE and the         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
A&D—L. That refusal is based on Article 21 of the
 framework agreement, under which only the signatory                 The action concerns aid which was granted in 1994 to
 organizations may use the Commission 's distribution                 Walzwerk Ilsenburg GmbH, which was at that time a legally
 systems . The A&D—L is not a party to that agreement.                independent subsidiary of the applicant company, Preussag
                                                                      Stahl AG. In 1995 it merged with its parent company. The
 The applicant alleges first that the Commission infringed the        applicant company is therefore the successor in title of the
 European civil servants' right of association, which is              undertaking which received aid .
 recognized by Article 24a of the Staff Regulations . On that
 point the applicant specifies that the very concept of               According to the applicant company, it was clear from the
 freedom of association entails, not only the right of officials      outset that the aid for the Grobblechstraße plant of
 or other servants freely to establish associations of their          Walzwerk Ilsenburg GmbH constituted 'regional
 choosing, but also the right of such associations to take part       investment aid' for the purposes of Article 5 of the fifth Steel
 in all legitime activities in defense of the professional            Aid Code, provision for which was made by general rules
 interests of their members . Consequently, the Community             approved by the Commission on 16 November 1994 and
 institutions should accept that trade unions and staff               that the aid benefited an undertaking operating in the
 associations must fulfil the role entrusted to them ,                territory of the former German Democratic Republic . It is
 particularly by acting to keep officials and other servants          also indisputable that the requirement of a ' reduction in the
 informed on all subjects of interest to staff.                       overall production capacity of that territory', within the
                                                                      meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 5 of the Code,
 In that connection the applicant adds that the agreement             had been satisfied, a fact of which the Commission was
 mentioned above constitutes an internal administrative act           already aware in December 1994 .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 318/18            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26 . 10 . 96
The contested decision is based solely on the assertion that         Communities on 21 August 1996 by Gaetano Aquilino,
the period from 25 November 1994 ( date of receipt of                residing at Havre ( Belgium ), represented by Nicolas Lhoest,
notification ) and 31 December 1994 was insufficient for a           of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
substantive examination of the aid granted and that after            Luxemburg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson, 1 rue
31 December 1994 the Commission 'no longer had the                   Glesener .
authority' to determine the compatibility of an aid project
with Article 5 of the Code .
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant considers that the contested decision should
be annulled on the following grounds :                               — annul the Commission 's note of 25 October 1995
— the Commission 's contention that it had insufficient
                                                                         communicating the decision to recover 91 working days
                                                                         from the applicant's salary for unjustified absences
    time to determine the compatibility of the aid in question           between 9 March 1994 and 15 February 1995 ,
    with the common market is incorrect, and is grossly
    discriminatory against the applicant company by
    comparison with other steel undertakings ( EKO-Stahl ).          — order the Council to reimburse the applicant in full in
    It is clear from the actual wording of Article 5 of the              respect of sums deducted from his salary in
    Code that that provision is concerned solely with the                implementation of the Council's decision of 25 October
    substantive aspects of the question whether aid is in                1995 , together with the interest due from the respective
    conformity with the Code . It makes no mention                       dates of deduction,
    whatsoever of time limits within which the Commission
    must take decisions . Rather it provides that the general        — order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings in
    exemption for regional aid in East Germany must cease                their entirety.
    at the end of 1994 . The Code nowhere prohibits the
    Commission from making a finding after 31 December
    1994 as to the substantive compatibility of aid exempted         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    pursuant to Article 5 ,
— the Commission's argument that it could not                        The applicant, an official in grade D 1 , contests the
    retrospectively determine the compatibility of the aid in        appointing authority's decision to deem unauthorized
    question with the common market is invalid,                      certain absences which, in his view, were covered by a
                                                                     medical certificate issued in the prescribed manner, and to
— the Commission abused its discretionary powers by                  recover from his salary the amount corresponding to the
    failing to take into consideration the legal interests of the    period of allegedly unjustified absences .
    applicant company or its legitimate expectations with
    regard to the substantive compatibility of the aid with          The applicant points out that, in the course of his duties, he
    the Code,                                                        was obliged over the years to carry and manhandle a large
                                                                     number of packages, to walk long distances and often to
— the decision infringes Articles 5 and 15 of the ECSC               remain in a standing position . Those forms of activity are
    Treaty . Contrary to the judgments of the Court of               not advisable for people who, like the applicant, suffer from
   Justice in the Boussac and Tubermeuse cases, the                  back problems. That is why on several occasions both the
    Commission has treated a mere alleged non-observance             doctors who treated him and the administration 's medical
    of a time-limit as a ground for demanding repayment of           officer called on the Council to find the applicant a job for
    aid which was substantively compatible with the                  which he was physically suited . No action was taken on
    common market in steel . There is no adequate statement          those suggestions .
    of reasons to explain why the Commission could not still
    determine the compatibility of the aid with Article 5 of
    the Code after 31 December 1994 , if all the necessary           The applicant points out above all that his absences were
    conditions were satisfied before that date .                     always circumstantiated by medical certificates. However,
                                                                     as from March 1994 the Council began to describe them as
                                                                     unjustified , although no medical examination cast doubt on
                                                                     the validity of those certificates, the institution itself did not
                                                                     think it necessary to have the applicant undergo a fresh
                                                                     medical examination and the Invalidity Committee was
                                                                     never convened .
Action brought on 21 August 1996 by Gaetano Aquilino
         against the Council of the European Union
                        ( Case T-130/96 )
                                                                     The applicant argues that the Council infringed Articles 59
                                                                     and 60 of the Staff Regulations, and acted in breach of the
                          ( 96/C 318/34 )                            principle that acts must be accompanied by a statement of
                                                                     reasons and contrary to its duty to have regard for the
                (Language of the case: French)                       welfare of officials .
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European