Case T-94/01: Action brought on 27 April 2001 by Astrid Hirsch against the European Central Bank.
Date: 2001-06-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Central Bank, European official, action for annulment (EU), allowances and expenses, education grant, expatriate worker

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.