Case T-9/01: Action brought on 19 January 2001 by Michael Becker against the European Court of Auditors
Date: 2001-03-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Court of Auditors, European official, action for annulment (EU), early retirement, regulations for civil servants, unpaid leave

24.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 95/17

— Error of fact and absolute lack of statement of reasons.
First, the need to involve consumer organisations was not
provided for in the invitation to tender and, secondly,
evidence of the requisite experience had been submitted.

— condemn the Commission to pay damages provisionally

evaluated at 1 Euro for the prejudice suffered;

— condemn the Commission to pay the costs.

— Internal

inconsistency of the decision and misuse of
powers. In a communication dated 14 September 2000,
sent by the Commission to the participants in the
tendering procedure, it was stated that not only had the
applicant consortium’s offer been selected, that is to say
its tender been accepted, it had also been awarded the
contract in which it was interested.

— Breach of the terms of the tender and invalidity on
grounds of incompetence. The applicants state in this
respect that the Director General who signed the contest-
ed decision was not, under the terms of the tender, the
person competent to carry out all the communications
relating to the tendering procedure and to adopt the
relevant measures, and that the contested letter confuses
selection criteria, for the purposes of participating in the
tendering procedure, and grounds for exclusion from the
tendering procedure itself.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant entered into a three-year contract of employ-
ment with the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts
of Employment (AECCE), which contract was renewable for a
further year.

Despite allegedly favourable opinions expressed in the appli-
cant’s last performance report, the AECCE decided only to
extend the applicant’s contract for six months.

The applicant seeks the annulment of this decision and submits
that the AECCE’s decision violated the obligation to state
reasons contained in Article 25 of the Staff Regulations. As all
three-year contracts of temporary staff were allegedly extended,
except for the one of the applicant, a limit of six months
for the extension of the applicant’s contract constitutes an
infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and goes
clearly against the interest of the service.

Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the decision infringes
Article 26 of the Staff Regulation and violates his rights to
defence, and that it constitutes a misuse of powers.

Action brought on 12 January 2001 by Norman Pyres
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-7/01)

(2001/C 95/33)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 January 2001 by Norman Pyres
(Swan Residence, rue Ph. Baucq, 100, Belgium), represented by
Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of De Backer, Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 19 January 2001 by Michael Becker
against the European Court of Auditors

(Case T-9/01)

(2001/C 95/34)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Court of Auditors was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 19 January 2001 by Michael Becker, of Luxembourg,
represented by Roy Nathan, lawyer.

— annul the decision of the Commission of 22 January
2000 extending the Appellant’s contract of employment
only until 30 July 2000, so for a further period limited to
six months, and, if necessary, annul the decision of the
Commission of 6 October 2000 rejecting the Appellant’s
complaint;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to withdraw its decision of 13 No-

vember 2000;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

C 95/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.3.2001

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was injured in two serious road-traffic accidents.
Following his initial treatment, the applicant applied for unpaid
leave; that application was granted pursuant to Article 40 of
the Staff Regulations, initially for a period of one year.

Whilst on leave, the applicant applied to be retired on health
grounds. The defendant refused that application, since the
applicant had at his own request been granted leave on
personal grounds, and could not therefore show that he was
performing the duties corresponding to a post.

The applicant asserts that the question as to whether or not
the criteria laid down by Article 78 of the Staff Regulations are
fulfilled is to be determined on the basis of expert medical
reports, and that the determination of that question cannot
depend on whether the applicant was, at the relevant time, on
leave on personal grounds. Consequently, the defendant is
wrong to believe that it has any margin of discretion as regards
the carrying- out an administrative/technical assessment of the
circumstances.

The present action is directed against the decision of 28 Sep-
tember 2000, by which the authority competent to conclude
staff contracts rejected the applicant’s complaint lodged under
No 166/2000, seeking confirmation that her employment
relationship with the Commission was for an indefinite period
under a temporary staff contract pursuant to Article 2(d) of
the Conditions of Employment of other Servants (CES).

The applicant points out in this respect that she was engaged
by the defendant on 16 October 1996 as a member of the
auxiliary staff. Subsequently, the applicant and the Commission
agreed to add a clause providing for the extension of the
contract until 15 October 2000, giving a total duration of
3 years. The contract was not subsequently renewed.

According to the applicant, the Commission’s intention of not
offering employment relationships to temporary agents in
excess of 3 years is evident from the fact that the Commission
chose to abolish posts in respect of which it had published
vacancy notices and for which the applicant herself had
applied.

In support of her arguments, the applicant alleges:

Action brought on 22 January 2001 by Catherine Mascetti
against Commission of the European Communities

— Breach of

the principle of good administration and
infringement of Articles 3 and 5 of the CES for having
unlawfully classified the applicant as an auxiliary agent.

(Case T-11/01)

(2001/C 95/35)

(Language of the case: Italian)

— Infringement of Articles 8 et seq. and 47 of the CES.

— Infringement of

the Commission of
19 January 1996 on a New Policy for Research Staff
(NPRS).

the decision of

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 January 2001 by Catherine
Mascetti, represented by Bruno Nascimbene and Massimo
Condinanzi, Avvocati, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

— Breach of the principles of legality and of legitimate

expectations.

— Unlawfulness of the NPRS as contrary to the CES and to

the principle of non-discrimination.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Unlawfulness of the NPRS for failure to consult the Staff

Regulations Committee.

— Annul the decision of the Commission of 28 September
2000 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
28 March 2000 under No 166/2000;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.