# C_2004262EN.01003401.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/34

---

Action brought on 9 July 2004 by Paola Staboli against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-281/04)

(2004/C 262/65)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 July 2004 Paola Staboli, residing in Saint-Gilles (Belgium), represented by L. Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decisions of the appointing authority of 12 March 2004 and 6 April 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint of 29 August 2003 whereby she criticised a decision of 9 May 2003 refusing to allow her, as part of a training programme, to take part in two conferences given in Melbourne and Perth between 26 June and 5 July 2003 and also refusing to grant her training leave for that purpose; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions of the appointing authority of 12 March 2004 and 6 April 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint of 29 August 2003 whereby she criticised a decision of 9 May 2003 refusing to allow her, as part of a training programme, to take part in two conferences given in Melbourne and Perth between 26 June and 5 July 2003 and also refusing to grant her training leave for that purpose;

| — | so far as may be necessary, also annul the abovementioned decision of 9 May 2003, adopted by the Director-General of the Commission's translation service; |
| --- | --- |

—

so far as may be necessary, also annul the abovementioned decision of 9 May 2003, adopted by the Director-General of the Commission's translation service;

| — | order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 5,000 by way of damages and interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 5,000 by way of damages and interest;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges the appointing authority's decision refusing her request for training leave in order to participate, as a speaker, in conferences given in Melbourne and Perth, in Australia, between 26 June and 5 July 2003.

In support of her claims, the applicant alleges:

| — | Breach of the third paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, of the decision adopted by the College of Commissioners on 7 May 2002, and in particular of Articles 1, 2 and 3 thereof, and also of the decision approving the applicant's training schedule for 2003, in that the request for training leave in question was refused on the ground that the it related solely to activities connected with her personal development whereas, first, her training schedule for the year 2003 referred expressly to it under the head of training and, furthermore, one of the objectives of officials' permanent training is specifically to ensure their personal development and their involvement in the enhancement of the reputation and excellence of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of the third paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, of the decision adopted by the College of Commissioners on 7 May 2002, and in particular of Articles 1, 2 and 3 thereof, and also of the decision approving the applicant's training schedule for 2003, in that the request for training leave in question was refused on the ground that the it related solely to activities connected with her personal development whereas, first, her training schedule for the year 2003 referred expressly to it under the head of training and, furthermore, one of the objectives of officials' permanent training is specifically to ensure their personal development and their involvement in the enhancement of the reputation and excellence of the Commission.

| — | Breach of the principle of non-discrimination, and also the existence in the present case of a manifest error of assessment, in that the appointing authority refuses to accept that the topic dealt with at the conferences in question (literature in the middle ages, and more particularly the works of Dante) comes within the applicant's continuous training, whereas the subject is directly connected with her activities within the translation service and, moreover, training leave is regularly granted to other officials for comparable activities. |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of the principle of non-discrimination, and also the existence in the present case of a manifest error of assessment, in that the appointing authority refuses to accept that the topic dealt with at the conferences in question (literature in the middle ages, and more particularly the works of Dante) comes within the applicant's continuous training, whereas the subject is directly connected with her activities within the translation service and, moreover, training leave is regularly granted to other officials for comparable activities.

---