You are on page 1of 2

28.3.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 94/33

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: and 87/0296/B2, of which it has been unlawfully deprived.

(1) Case C-199/91 Foyer Culturel du Sart-Tilman SARL v.


The applicant, a non-profit-making association governed Commission [1993] ECR I-2689.
by Belgian law, which has promoted a series of training (2) OJ L 289, 22.10.1983, p. 1.
projects, states that the Belgian State submitted to the
European Social Fund, in its own name and on behalf of
the applicant itself, several applications for assistance
which gave rise to Commission decisions approving them
in six files bearing the numbers 84/3643/B6, 85/0077/B4,
85/0186/B6, 86/0274/B2, 87/0295/B2 and 87/0296/B2, as Action brought on 16 January 1998 by Wirtschaftsver-
well as to the payment of advances. In December 1988 the einigung Stahl and Others against the Commission of the
Belgian authorities informed the Commission that the European Communities
applicant was being wound up and asked it to stop all (Case T-16/98)
payments and inform it of the sums not yet disbursed in
respect of the approved files. The decisions to reduce (98/C 94/80)
financial assistance finally taken by the Commission were
the subject of an action before the Court of Justice which, (Language of the case: German)
by judgment of 25 May 1993 (1), upheld in part the
applicant's claims. An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 16 January
The applicant claims that the Commission has still not 1998 by Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl, of Düsseldorf, AG
adopted the measures to comply with that judgment and der Dillinger Hüttenwerke, of Dillingen/Saar, EKO Stahl
that failure to act has given rise to the damage allegedly GmbH, of Eisenhüttenstadt, Krupp Thyssen Nirosta
suffered by the applicant. GmbH, of Bochum, Thyssen Krupp Stahl GmbH, of
Duisburg, Preussag Stahl AG, of Salzgitter, Stahlwerke
Bremen GmbH, of Bremen, and Thyssen Stahl AG, of
In support of its claims it states in particular that: Duisburg, represented by Jochim Sedemund,
Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
Rue.
Ð under the legislation applicable at the time when the
applications for assistance were submitted and
subsequently approved by the Commission, between The applicants claim that the Court should:
1984 and 1987, a promoter whose application for
assistance is approved by the Commission is entitled Ð annul Commission Decision 98/4/ECSC of 26
to payment of an advance and, following a further November 1997 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
application accompanied by a detailed report certified Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (Case IV/36.069
by the Member State, to payment of the balance, Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl),

Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.


Ð Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 of
17 October 1983 on the implementation of Decision Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
83/516/EEC (2), provides for the circumstances in
which Fund assistance may be suspended, reduced or By the contested decision the Commission prohibited the
withdrawn and the amounts paid by way of an implementation of the information exchange agreement
advance refunded, notified by the applicants on 28 May 1996, on the ground
of infringement of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (1).

Ð the right of a promoter whose applications have been The applicants submit that the Commission infringed the
approved and which received an advance to receive principle of legal certainty by conceptual and logical
the outstanding amount may not be removed other inconsistency in the interpretation of Article 65 (1) of the
than in observance of the prescribed procedures, and ECSC Treaty, a provision imposing a monetary penalty
whose interpretation is subject to the principle of
certainty. Second, the Commission breached the principles
Ð in particular the right must be inferred of a promoter of the burden of proof: according to the case-law, the
to a decision by the Commission on the application Commission is dispensed from the need to prove that
for payment of the balance submitted by the Member there has been an actual restriction of competition only if
State of which it has the nationality. the agreement is either intended to restrict competition or
else anti-competitive per se. There is no question of that,
however, in the case of the present market information
Finally, the applicant states that, in the absence of any system, since that is to be regarded from the point of view
proper investigation by the Fund regarding its claims, it of competition law as either neutral or even promoting
cannot but set its damage at the level of the amount of the competition. The contested decision does not even attempt
balance of the assistance in files 85/0186/B6, 87/0295/B2 to carry out a corresponding empirical examination.
C 94/34 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 28.3.98

Third, the Commission made incorrect observations on The applicant claims that the Court should:
market transparency. An independent expert report
annexed to the application for negative certification, Ð annul, or at least declare void, the decision contained
which showed that competition is promoted by increased in the defendant's letter of 14 October 1997 refusing
transparency, was ignored by the Commission. That the applicant's request for repayment of the
constitutes a serious defect in the determination of the Community tax paid by the applicant in respect of the
facts, which affected the outcome of the decision. period from 1 January 1989 to 31 September 1995
inclusive,
Fourth, in the applicants' submission, Article 60 of the
ECSC Treaty pursues a system of complete transparency in Ð in so far as may be necessary, declare void the decision
the field of prices and conditions of sale. If, according to of the European Parliament to subject freelance
the Court of Justice, that applies to market transparency interpreters working for it to Community tax,
in the field of prices, then market transparency must all alternatively rule that that decision may not be relied
the more be permitted with respect to quantities delivered. upon against the applicant for the purposes of
deducting, in respect of the period from 1 January
Fifth, the fact that the Commission did not investigate the 1989 to 31 September 1995 inclusive, Community tax
market shares with the means usually available to it, as from the income earned by her from her activities as a
described in its Notice on the definition of relevant freelance interpreter working for the defendant,
market' (2), constitutes a serious defect in the
determination of the facts. Ð in so far as may be necessary, declare void Article 8 of
the agreement with the AIIC, alternatively rule that
Sixth, the applicants submit that the Commission that article may not be relied upon against the
infringed the second paragraph of Article 47 of the ECSC applicant for the purposes of deducting, in respect of
Treaty by informing the Government of the United States the period from 1 January 1989 to 31 September 1995
of America that it had no objections to the exchange of inclusive, Community tax from the income earned by
ECSC questionnaire 2Ð72. The applicants had not made her from her activities as a freelance interpreter
exchange of that questionnaire the subject of their working for the defendant,
notification, and according to the case-law business secrets
of the undertakings concerned must, on the basis of the Ð order the defendant to repay the Community tax paid
general principle of which the procedural rules of by the applicant during the period from 1 January
competition law are an expression, receive especially 1989 to 31 September 1995 inclusive, currently
extensive protection, which also means that the estimated by the applicant as amounting to ECU
undertakings concerned must be informed beforehand in 17 309, together with interest at the annual rate of
an adequately reasoned decision, in order thus to be given 8 % or at the legal rate applicable,
the opportunity to seek judicial protection before the
Ð by way of subsidiary relief:
information is passed on.
order the defendant to compensate the applicant for
Finally, the contested decision infringes the obligation to
the damage, currently estimated to amount to BEF
state reasons under Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty, since it
642 199, together with such further damage as may be
lacks a convincing statement of reasons on a number of
specified, arising from additional claims by the Belgian
points.
tax and/or social security authorities in relation to the
period from 1 January 1989 to 31 September 1995
(1) OJ L 1, 3.1.1998, p. 10.
inclusive during which the defendant retained
(2) OJ C 372, 9.12.1997, p. 5, at point 33 et seq.
Community tax deducted from the applicant's income,

Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:


Action brought on 14 January 1998 by F against the The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
European Parliament Case T-2/98.
(Case T-17/98)
(98/C 94/81)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the European Parliament was brought Action brought on 19 January 1998 by Peter Reichert
before the Court of First Instance of the European against the European Parliament
Communities on 14 January 1998 by F, residing in (Case T-18/98)
Brussels, represented by G. van der Wal, Advocaat with a (98/C 94/82)
right of audience before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
(Supreme Court of the Netherlands), The Hague, and (Language of the case: German)
L. Y. J. M. Parret, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, An action against the European Parliament was brought
31 Grand-Rue. before the Court of First Instance of the European