Case T-341/00: Action brought on 10 November 2000 by Jan Pflugradt against the European Central Bank
Date: 2001-01-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Central Bank, appeal to an administrative authority, contract terms, labour law, protective clause, servant (EU), work contract

C 4/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.1.2001

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 10 November 2000 by Jan Pflugradt
against the European Central Bank

— annul the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2000
No 54 (2000) D/106308 pursuant to Article 320(4) of
the EC Treaty and order the defendant to pay the costs.

(Case T-341/00)

(2001/C 4/16)

(Language of the case: German)

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action the applicant contests the decision of the
Commission of 14 August 2000 No 54 (2000) D/106308
withdrawing the financial contribution from the EAGGF
granted to the Comunità Montana della Valnerina (Norcia) by
decision C(93) 3182 of 10 November 2000 relating to a
contribution by the EAGGF-Guidance Section in the context
of project 93.IT.06.016 ‘a pilot
forestry agro-alimentary
demonstration project in marginal hill areas (France, Italy)’.

The applicant points out in this connection that, in order to
improve the chances of obtaining finance for the project
submitted by the applicant, the Commission had suggested
through non-official channels to the authorities of the upland
community to link their project with a similar one put forward
by the ‘Route des Senteurs’ operating in the Drôme Provençale
region of France.

In support of
its claims, the applicant alleges breach of
the principles of non-discrimination and of proportionality,
inasmuch as the defendant has sought, by a global withdrawal
of the total contribution, to deal with complex and hetero-
genous facts, arising from two draft projects submitted entirely
separately and independently by two different persons, with
the risk of charging each of the partners with also having
committed the irregularity alleged against the other party.

An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 10 November 2000 by Jan Pflugradt, of Frankfurt am Main
(Germany), represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner
and Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt am Main
(Germany).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the European Central Bank has committed
a breach of the applicant’s employment contract by
employing him to perform the activities forming the
subject-matter of the job description of 28 June 2000;

— declare that the job description of 28 June 2000 has no

legal force or effect;

— order the European Central Bank to withdraw the job

description of 28 June 2000;

— order the European Central Bank, in the event that the
relief constituting item (3) in the form of order sought in
his application of 30 June 2000 in Case T-178/00 (1) is
not granted by the Court of First Instance, to provide the
applicant in any event with work corresponding to the
activities forming the subject-matter of the job description
on which the applicant’s staff report of 23 November
1999 was based;

— order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.

it is clear that the
Moreover, according to the applicant,
irregularity with which ‘Route des Senteurs’ is charged, involv-
ing almost 67 % of the EEC contribution, is far greater than
that with which the applicant is charged, which involves only
36 % of the same contribution. It is in fact the sanction of
withdrawing the whole of the contribution which gives rise to
the breach of
the principle of proportionality, where a
reduction of that contribution in proportion to any irregularity
would have been an equitable solution which would have
taken account of their respective responsibilities.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an employee of the ECB. He contests the
validity in law of a written communication by the defendant
assigning him, with reference to a job description, to perform
new tasks. He maintains that the assignment to him of those
tasks infringes his contractual rights. In addition, the job
description is inconsistent with what has been contractually
agreed.

(1) OJ C 259, 9.9.2000, p. 29.