# C_2005031EN.01002301.xml

| 5.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/23

---

Action brought on 18 October 2004 by Anna Kontouli against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-416/04)

(2005/C 31/46)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 October 2004 by Anna Kontouli, London, (United Kingdom), represented by V. Arkitidis, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Council's decision of 16 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint submitted pursuant to Article 90 paragraph 2 of the Staff Regulations, concerning the setting of the appropriate correction coefficient of her pension; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Council's decision of 16 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint submitted pursuant to Article 90 paragraph 2 of the Staff Regulations, concerning the setting of the appropriate correction coefficient of her pension;

| — | order the Council to pay the applicant an amount equal to the balance between the amounts of pension paid to the applicant thus far and the amounts of pension that should have been paid to the applicant, should the correction coefficient of the applicant's pension have been set by reference to the United Kingdom since the applicant's right to pension was established on 1 May 2003; this balance to be increased by default interest equal to the interest rate set by the European Central Bank for its refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the applicant an amount equal to the balance between the amounts of pension paid to the applicant thus far and the amounts of pension that should have been paid to the applicant, should the correction coefficient of the applicant's pension have been set by reference to the United Kingdom since the applicant's right to pension was established on 1 May 2003; this balance to be increased by default interest equal to the interest rate set by the European Central Bank for its refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

| — | order the Council to pay the applicant compensation equal to 100,000 Euros for substantial non-contractual and moral damage suffered by the applicant throughout the administrative proceedings preceding the application and through the applicant's various oral and written communications with the Council's services; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the applicant compensation equal to 100,000 Euros for substantial non-contractual and moral damage suffered by the applicant throughout the administrative proceedings preceding the application and through the applicant's various oral and written communications with the Council's services; and

| — | order that the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings be borne by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings be borne by the Council.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a former official of the Council, receiving an invalidity pension as of 1 May 2003. After her retirement the applicant notified the Council that she had fixed her permanent residence in the United Kingdom and, on this information, the Council initially applied the correction coefficient for that country on the applicant's pension. However, considering that the applicant had provided contradictory information on her place of residence, the Council suspended the application of the correction coefficient for the United Kingdom, applying first the one for Belgium and later that of Greece, where the applicant's initial place of origin was situated. The applicant filed a complaint, which was rejected by the contested decision of 16 July 2004.

In support of her application the applicant submits that she permanently and lawfully resides in the United Kingdom from 1 May 2003 onwards. She considers that by finding otherwise the Council violated Article 82 paragraph 1 of the Staff Regulations and committed a manifest error of assessment. She also submits that the Council failed to provide sufficient reasoning for its decision and infringed the general principle of legal certainty by reversing the legitimate expectations of the applicant. She further contends that the Council violated the principle of good administration and its duty of solicitude towards the applicant. Finally, the applicant submits that she was substantially hurt by the overall attitude of the defendant towards her and by the fact that her daughter had to abandon her doctoral studies in Greece in order to move to the United Kingdom and work there to provide the applicant with financial support. The applicant requests the court to grant her compensation for this moral damage.

---