Case T-95/01: Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Gérard Goget, Pierre Huge and Emmanuel Gabolde v Court of Auditors of the European Communities
Date: 2001-06-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Court of Auditors, European official, action for annulment (EU), appointment of staff, staff assessment

C 186/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.6.2001

In support of her claim the applicant alleges:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of the selection notice, of essential pro-
cedural requirements, and of the rules governing the
operation of selection boards (principle of independence);

— The existence, in casu, of a manifest error of assessment;

— Breach of the obligation to provide reasons;

— Infringement of the principle of transparency;

— Infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

Action brought on 27 April 2001 by Astrid Hirsch against
the European Central Bank.

(Case T-94/01)

(2001/C 186/24)

(Language of the case: English)

The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the
ECB of 25 September 2000 refusing her the benefit of an
educational allowance, and the decisions of
the ECB of
21 December 2000, rejecting the appellant’s administrative
review, and of 20 February 2000, rejecting the appellant’s
grievance.

The educational allowance was refused to the applicant on the
basis of Article 19 of the Conditions of Employment of the
staff of the ECB. According to that article, members of the staff
of the ECB who are entitled to an expatriation allowance of
16 % are also entitled to an educational allowance for each
dependent child until the establishment of a European school
in the Frankfurt area. The applicant has the German nationality
and is therefore not entitled to an expatriation allowance.
According to the ECB she is for this reason also not entitled to
an educational allowance for her oldest child.

The applicant claims:

— that this difference in treatment between staff members
entitled to an expatriation allowance and those who are
not entitled to an expatriation allowance, is unjustified
and therefore constitutes a breach of the principle of non-
discrimination.

— that the administration has failed in its obligation of
due care since it has not taken into consideration the
applicant’s situation.

An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 27 April 2001 by Astrid Hirsch, resident in Germany,
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of
DeBacker Association, Brussels (Belgium).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Central Bank of
25 September 2000 refusing the applicant the benefit of
the education allowance and therefore the reimbursement
of the tuition fees that the applicant has to pay for
the attendance of her son at the Internationale Schule
Frankfurt and, if necessary, annul the decisions of the
European Central Bank of 21 December 2000 rejecting
the applicant’s administrative review and of 20 February
2000 rejecting the applicant’s grievance;

— order the ECB to reimburse the tuition fees amounting to
EUR 11 370,00 for the school year 2000-2001 and of
future tuition fees for the future school years, with an
interest of 8 % per year from 1 of September of each year
until the due payment, and order the ECB to reimburse
the installation fees amounting to EUR 5 922 with an
interest of 8 % per year from 1 of September 2001;

Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Gérard Goget, Pierre
Huge and Emmanuel Gabolde v Court of Auditors of the
European Communities

(Case T-95/01)

(2001/C 186/25)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
on 4 May 2001 by Gérard Goget, residing in Hettange-Grande,
France, Pierre Huge, residing in Bonnevoie, Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg, and Emmanuel Gabolde, residing in Metz,
France, represented by the lawyer André Soulier, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:

— Annul the decision of 22 February 2001 with all the

consequences in law;

— order the ECB to pay the costs.

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

30.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 186/17

Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support

The applicants oppose the appointment, with effect from
1 July 2001, of the new Secretary General of the Court of
Auditors.

In support of their claim, they rely on the following pleas:

— Legal errors in the vacancy notice for the post in that,
whilst the vacancy notice indicated that the successful
candidate would be paid on the basis of salary scale A1,
the Court subsequently envisaged proposing that the post
at issue should be an ‘unclassified’ post. Moreover, the
condition regarding relevant experience and the condition
concerning ability to assume responsibility for manage-
ment of an organisation with numerous staff do not meet
the requirements of precision and accuracy.

— Manifest error of assessment of criteria in that,

in
particular, the Court used grade A6/A7 as the basis for
calculating the requisite 15 years’ experience.

— Infringement of procedure in the selection of candidates
in that none of them was called to an interview even
though such an interview was provided for in the vacancy
notice.

— Manifest error of assessment in the choice of the success-

ful candidate.

Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Christos Gogos against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-97/01)

(2001/C 186/26)

(Language of the case: Greek)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 May 2001 by Christos Gogos,
assistant administrator at the Commission, represented by
Professor Kharis Tagaras, Lawyer, Sagia Chambers, Likavit-
tou 5, Athens 106 72.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul:

(1)

the decision of the appointing authority of the
defendant, as recorded and notified to the applicant
by letter of 30 June 2000 under reference num-
ber 1847, to invite him to a fresh oral test in internal
competition COM/A/17/96 following the annulling
judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 Febru-
ary 2000 (Case T-95/98);

(2)

(3)

the decision of the selection board for that compe-
tition, as recorded and notified to the applicant by
the defendant’s letter of 17 October 2000 under
reference number 2556, to give the applicant a fail
mark in the abovementioned fresh oral test and not
to include him on the list of successful candidates;

the defendant’s reply of 20 February 2001 rejecting
the administrative complaints under reference num-
bers R/502/00 and R/627/00 submitted by the
applicant against the first two contested measures
referred to above;

(4)

all other
defendant;

related enforceable measures of

the

— order

payment

to
EUR 50 000 for the material and non-material harm
caused to the applicant by the abovementioned measures;

compensation

amounting

of

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Grounds for annulment and main arguments

The applicant’s allegations against the defendant are as follows:

C l a i m f o r a n n u l m e n t

— Infringement of Article 233 EC, independently and in
conjunction with the infringement of the principle of
equal treatment and of the rules governing the operation
of selection boards:

(a)

(b)

the method chosen by the defendant for complying
with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
23 February 2000 was inconsistent with Article 233
EC (and with the abovementioned principle and
rules);

it would have been lawful to comply with the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 Febru-
ary 2000 by including the applicant on the list of
successful candidates without fresh tests:

(i)

(ii)

the argument arising from the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of 23 February 2000;

rebuttal of the defendant’s submissions that
entry on the list of successful candidates with-
out a fresh oral test is contrary to Community
law;

(iii)

the applicant’s general performance in the
tests in competition COM/A/17/96 and the
principle of proportionality;