# C_2005115EN.01003602.xml

| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/36

---

Action brought on 11 March 2005 by Olivier Chassagne against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-123/05)

(2005/C 115/65)

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 11 March 2005 by Olivier Chassagne, residing in Brussels, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues and Yola Minatchy, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the appointing authority's decision of 9 December 2004 responding to the applicant's complaint of 28 May 2004 and require the appointing authority to take whatever action is dictated by that annulment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the appointing authority's decision of 9 December 2004 responding to the applicant's complaint of 28 May 2004 and require the appointing authority to take whatever action is dictated by that annulment;

| 2. | rule that any unjustified and objectively unjustifiable discrimination based on whether or not the place of origin and/or place of employment belongs, in the geographical sense, to the continent of Europe is unlawful and accordingly declare that Article 8(4) of Annex VII to the old Staff Regulations is unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

2.

rule that any unjustified and objectively unjustifiable discrimination based on whether or not the place of origin and/or place of employment belongs, in the geographical sense, to the continent of Europe is unlawful and accordingly declare that Article 8(4) of Annex VII to the old Staff Regulations is unlawful;

| 3. | recall, irrespective of the foregoing, that Réunion is an integral part of the Community under Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty and is also subject, through the accession of its Member State, to the EAEC Treaty and the Treaty on European Union and point out in that regard that European officials originating from that territory are entitled to equal treatment vis-à-vis those originating from a European territory, in the geographical sense, of a Member State; |
| --- | --- |

3.

recall, irrespective of the foregoing, that Réunion is an integral part of the Community under Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty and is also subject, through the accession of its Member State, to the EAEC Treaty and the Treaty on European Union and point out in that regard that European officials originating from that territory are entitled to equal treatment vis-à-vis those originating from a European territory, in the geographical sense, of a Member State;

vis-à-vis

| 4. | award the applicant EUR 1 as token compensation for the non-material damage suffered and EUR 7 200 to compensate for the financial damage suffered. |
| --- | --- |

4.

award the applicant EUR 1 as token compensation for the non-material damage suffered and EUR 7 200 to compensate for the financial damage suffered.

| 5. | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission's decision not to acknowledge his entitlement, as an official originating from a French Overseas Department, to be covered by Article 8(1) to (3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations in the version in force before 1 May 2004.

In support of his action, the applicant pleads unlawfulness of the legal basis of the contested decision, namely Article 8(4) of Annex VII to the old Staff Regulations of Officials. According to the applicant, that provision is invalidated by the absence of a statement of reasons, is discriminatory and infringes Article 21(1) of the European Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union.

The applicant also alleges breach of the obligation to state reasons and breach of a number of rules and general principles of Community law, such as the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, as well as manifest error of assessment, breach of the principle of equal treatment and breach of the principle of good administration

---