You are on page 1of 2

C 299/36 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 26.9.

98

CortesaÄo SeicËa Neves) Ð application for the annulment of Action brought on 10 July 1998 by Svend Bech Kristensen
the Commission decision of 21 December 1994 granting against the Council of the European Union
funding under Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of (Case T-103/98)
16 May 1995 establishing a Cohesion Fund (2) for Project
No 94/10/65/005 concerning the construction of a new (98/C 299/65)
road bridge across the Tagus in the Lisbon region of
Portugal Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: J. Azizi, President, R. García-Valdecasas and (Language of the case: French)
M. Jaeger, Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, made an order on
15 July 1998 in which it:
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
1. dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible; Communities on 10 July 1998 by Svend Bech Kristensen,
resident in Waterloo, Belgium, represented by Jean-NoeÈl
2. orders the applicants to bear their own costs and, Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise
jointly and severally to pay those incurred by the Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
Commission; in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
30, rue de Cessange.

3. orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ C 286, 28.10.1995.
(2) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994, p. 1.
Ð annul the Council decision of 6 October 1997 refusing
the request for refund of that part of the pension
rights transferred to the Community pension scheme
which was not taken into consideration in the
calculation of the pensionable service to be taken into
account pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE Staff Regulations,
(Fourth Chamber)
of 8 July 1998 Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
in Case T-200/95 X. v. Commission of the European
Communities (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(Officials Ð Time limit for submitting a complaint Ð
Manifest inadmissibility)
The applicant, a Council official of Danish nationality,
(98/C 299/64) challenges the decision of the Director-General for
Administration and Protocol of 6 October 1997 rejecting
(Language of the case: Greek) his request for a refund of that part of the sum paid to the
institution by the Danish pension schemes, on the transfer
In Case T-200/95: X., a former official of the Commission of his pension rights acquired in Denmark, which could
of the European Communities, residing in Brussels, not be taken into account in the calculation of the number
represented by Georges A. Sakellaropoulos, of the Athens of years of pensionable service to be credited under the
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Community pension scheme.
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31, Grand'Rue, against the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Maria
In support of his claims he contends:
Condou and Ana Maria Alves Vieira) Ð application for
annulment of a decision refusing the applicant admission
to the Commission's buildings following the adoption of a Ð that Article 11(1) and (2) of Annex VIII to the Staff
decision removing him from his post and also for Regulations has been infringed. Under that provision
compensation for the loss suffered in that connection Ð an official is entitled on establishment to have paid to
the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, the Communities either the actuarial equivalent or the
President of the Chamber, and K. Lenaerts and J. D. flat-rate redemption value of retirement pension rights
Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on acquired before his entry into service. In the
8 July in which it: applicant's view, that is a mandatory duty not
allowing the exercise of any discretion as to the
1. dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible; appropriateness of taking into account the whole or
part of the amount of the pension rights transferred by
the official,
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995. Ð that the third indent of Article 10(3) of the general
provisions implementing Article 11 of Annex VIII to
the Staff Regulations is unlawful inasmuch as it lays
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.