Report for the Hearing delivered in Case C-163/88

I — Facts

1. On 2 November 1987, the applicant, a former Member of the Commission of the European Communities, wrote to the Commission asking to be entitled to benefit under the Community's health insurance scheme.

2. By a letter of 29 February 1988, the applicant submitted a complaint to the Commission seeking to assert his right, as a former Member of the Commission, to benefit under the Community health insurance scheme.

II — Written procedure and conclusions of the parties

1. The application was lodged at the Court Registry on 7 June 1988.

2. The applicant claims that the Court should withdraw, amend or annul the contested decision, take any appropriate measure and award costs against the Commission, including legal fees.

3. Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate General, the Court (First Chamber) decided to open the oral procedure without any preparatory inquiry.

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. The applicant considers that his application is admissible as the contested decision was addressed directly and individually to him, and the procedure of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations was followed.

2. As regards the merits of the case, the applicant relies particularly on Article 11 of the regulation governing the emoluments of Members and former Members of the Commission, the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors, which contains two principles which are wholly identical to those contained in Article 71 of the Staff Regulations. According to the first principle, the risks covered by a national social security scheme are not covered by the Community social security scheme. According to the second principle, the provisions which apply to officials of the Community also apply to Members and former Members of the Commission and of the Court.

3. The applicant also alleges that the contested decision violates fundamental principles of Community law, and in particular the principle of equal treatment. He considers that it is clearly inadmissible for a former Member of the Commission not to be entitled to the difference between the Community benefits and the lower national benefits, or to be unable to benefit thereunder where the national scheme makes no provision for similar benefits (spectacles, dental care, etc.).

1 Language of the case: Greek.