CELEX: C1997/199/83
Language: en
Date: 1997-06-28 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 24 April 1997 by Michael Collins against the Committee of the Regions of the European Union (Case T-132/97)

28 . 6 . 97               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 199/35
In its second plea, the applicant maintains that the                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Commission misused its powers and manifestly erred in its
interpretation of the condition laid down by the second
indent of Article 4 ( 2 ) of Decision 3855/91 /ECSC. The                — annul the decision of the Committee of the Regions of
mere fact that the Commission based its entire assessment                   the European Union inasmuch as it failed to pay the
on that interpretation renders all its evaluations of the                   applicant the daily subsistence allowance provided for
                                                                            in Article 10 (2 ) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulation
separate arguments submitted by the applicant and by the
Italian authorities inconsistent with the provisions of the                 for the entire period of his probation plus one month ,
Aid Code .
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay to the applicant the daily
                                                                            subsistence allowance for the entire period of his
In its third plea, the applicant argues that the decision                   probation plus one month, together with default
infringes Community law and in particular the principle of                  interest of 8 % per annum from the date on which it
non-discrimination. The Commission treated comparable                       became payable, less the amount of Bfrs 101 880
situations dissimilarly and non-comparable situations                       which was paid by the defendant to the applicant as
similarly. Furthermore, the criteria which the Commission                   the daily subsistence allowance for the first 120 days
applied to the Italian steel undertakings were more                         of the applicant's probationary period, and
restrictive than those applied to undertakings in other
Member States . By not making use of the powers
                                                                        — order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
conferred on it by Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty to                         defendant.
approve measures for closures, the Commission also
discriminated against the applicant as compared with
companies in respect of which it adopted such an                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
approach.
                                                                        The applicant states that, having successfully passed an
                                                                        internal competition in the Committee of the Regions, he
Lastly, the applicant maintains that the position adopted
                                                                        was appointed as a probationary official from 16 April
by the Commission in the contested decision is in open                  1996, and received a daily subsistence allowance under
contrast to that adopted in its decision of 12 December
                                                                        Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations . Payment
1994, confirming that the aid measures notified by the
                                                                        of this allowance was limited to the first 120 days of his
Italian Republic were compatible with the common
                                                                        probationary period.
market. The Commission thereby breached the principles
of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate
expectations, and acted in contradiction of a measure                   The applicant submits that in accordance with
which the Commission itself had previously adopted.                     Article 10 (2 ) ( b ) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, he
                                                                        is entitled, as a probationary official, to receive the daily
                                                                        subsistence allowance for the entire period of his
(') OJ 1997 L 102, 19 . 4 . 1997.
(2 ) See p. 30 of this Official Journal .                               probation, plus one month.
(') Commission Decision 3855/91 /ECSC of 27 November 1991
     establishing Community rules for aid to the steel industry ( OJ    The applicant contends on this point that the correct
     No L 362 , 21 . 12 . 1991 , p. 57 ).
                                                                        interpretation of Article 10 ( 2 ) of Annex VII is that any
                                                                        probationary official, whether entitled to the household
                                                                        allowance or not, is entitled to the payment of the daily
                                                                        subsistence allowance throughout the period of probation
                                                                        plus one month . He maintains that this interpretation has
                                                                        been confirmed by the decisions of the European Court of
                                                                        First Instance which has held that, for a probationary
Action brought on 24 April 1997 by Michael Collins                      official, the purpose of the daily subsistence allowance is
against the Committee of the Regions of the European                    to compensate that official for the inconvenience resulting
                                  Union                                 from the precarious nature of the employment
                           ( Case T-132/97                              relationship, precariousness that continues throughout the
                                                                        probationary period.
                             ( 97/C 199/83 )
                                                                        The applicant considers that the interpretation of the
                  (Language of the case: English)                       Court as to the purpose of the daily subsistence allowance
                                                                        makes no connection whatsoever between a probationary
                                                                        official 's entitlement to this allowance and the entitlement
                                                                        of the same official to receive the household allowance .
An action against the Committee of the Regions of the                   He contends therefore that the Committee, in breach of
European Union was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 24 April 1997                   his rights under the Staff Regulations, has restrictively and
                                                                        erroneously interpreted and applied Article 10 ( 2 ) of
by Michael Collins, represented by Vassilis Akritidis and               Annex VII .
Jonathan Branton, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsene Kronshagen, 12,
Boulevard de la Foire .