You are on page 1of 2

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.
C 299/38 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 26.9.98

In support of his application he argues, inter alia: Communities on 13 July 1998 by Jean Lesueur, resident in
Brussels, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique
Ð that the author of the decision lacked jurisdiction or Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the
that the decision lacks any constitutional or legal basis Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
in that the defendant is, on the basis of a simple the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de
declaration which does not constitute an amendment Cessange.
or provision having the force of primary law,
purporting to enact a piece of delegated legislation The applicant claims that the Court should:
which it is not constitutionally authorised to adopt.
Furthermore, the applicant argues that there is a
Ð annul the Council decision of 6 October 1997 refusing
discrepancy between the scope of the declaration,
the request for refund of that part of the pension
which presumably constitutes the basis of the disputed
rights transferred to the Community pensions regime
decision, and the decision itself, in that the decision is
which was not taken into consideration in the
general in nature,
calculation of the pensionable service to be taken into
account pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the
Ð breach of Articles 11, 12, 16 and 17 of the Staff Staff Regulations,
Regulations in so far as the disputed decision institutes
security screening by the national authorities and
Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
withdraws the appointing authority's autonomous
power to adopt a decision in the event that the
national authorities' opinion is negative and places Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
officials and employees affected by such screening in a
position of dependence. Similarly, both Article 23 of The pleas in law and main arguments are those already
the Staff Regulations and the Protocol on Privileges raised in Case T-103/98 Kristensen v. Council (1).
and Immunities of the European Communities have,
according to the applicant, been ignored in so far as
they provide for a legal system of official immunity in (1) See page 36 of this Official Journal.
relation to the accomplishment of tasks entrusted to
officials,

Ð breach of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations in so far
as the disputed decision provides for the constitution
of a security file in addition to the single file referred Action brought on 20 July 1998 by RJB Mining plc
to in Article 26, against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-110/98)
Ð breach of Article 24 of the Treaty establishing a single (98/C 299/69)
Council and a single Commission of the European
Communities of 8 April 1965, and of the Council
(Language of the case: English)
decision of 23 June 1981 establishing a concertation
procedure, breach of essential procedural requirements
and hierarchy of legal sources in so far as the disputed An action against the Commission of the European
decision, which is a simple decision, implicitly Communities was brought before the Court of First
purports to amend several provisions of the Staff Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 1998
Regulations which are statutory in nature. In by RJB Mining plc, represented by Mark Brealey and
particular, there was no prior proposal by the Jonathan Lawrence, with an address for service in
Commission neither were the institutions consulted. Luxembourg at the offices of Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð
10, rue Mathias Hardt, boite postale 39.
(1) OJ L 140, 12.5.1998, p. 12.
The applicant claims that the Court should:

Ð annul the Commission Decision of 10 June 1998
relating to financial interventions from Germany to
the coal industry in 1997, which purports to authorise
Action brought on 13 July 1998 by Jean Lesueur against Germany to grant aid to its coal industry, and
the Council of the European Union
(Case T-107/98) Ð order that the Commission pay the costs of the action,
(98/C 299/68) including those of the applicant.

(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 is an independently owned coal-mining
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European company incorporated in England and Wales. Its major