Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2001 in Joined Cases T-95/00 and T-96/00: Tamara Zaur-Gora and Danielle Dubigh v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Competition — Non-admission — Age limit — Request for review — Time-limit for lodging a complaint — Admissibility — Misuse of powers — Discrimination — Action manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2001-08-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition (EU), servant (EU)

11.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 227/19

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

The applicant claims that the Court should:

of 3 April 2001

in Joined Cases T-95/00 and T-96/00: Tamara Zaur-Gora
and Danielle Dubigh v Commission of the European
Communities (1)

(Officials — Competition — Non-admission — Age limit
— Request for review — Time-limit for lodging a complaint
— Admissibility — Misuse of powers — Discrimination —
Action manifestly unfounded)

(2001/C 227/37)

(Language of the case: French)

In Joined Cases T-95/00 and T-96/00: Tamara Zaur-Gora, a
member of the auxiliary staff of the Commission of the
European Communities, residing at Lodelinsart (Belgium), and
Danielle Dubigh,
represented by
residing in Brussels,
J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, avocats, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for
annulment of the decisions of the selection board in compe-
tition COM/C/2/99 not
the applicants to that
to admit
competition — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
composed of: J. Azizi, President, and K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 3 April 2001,
the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

2.

3.

The actions are declared admissible;

The actions are dismissed as manifestly unfounded;

The parties are to bear their own costs, including those relating
to the objections of inadmissibility.

(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000 and OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.

Action brought on 20 April 2001 by Claude Willeme
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-89/01)

(2001/C 227/38)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 April 2001 by Claude Willeme,
residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
Laure Levi, avocats.

— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 19 June
2000, notified on 26 June 2000,
imposing on the
applicant, with effect from 1 July 2000, the disciplinary
measure of downgrading from grade A3, step 3, to
grade A6, step 6, as provided for in Article 86(2)(e) of the
Staff Regulations and, in so far as may be necessary, annul
the implicit decision rejecting the complaint submitted on
11 September 2000;

— order the defendant to pay EUR 50 000 by way of
compensation for the damage suffered as a result of that
decision, that sum being provisionally quantified on an
equitable basis;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the appli-
cant when the administration of the defendant institution
learned that his wife had been awarded an employment
contract with one of its contractors and had been paid for six
months despite the fact that she only worked for two weeks.

In the context of those disciplinary proceedings, the appointing
authority decided that the applicant should be suspended. That
decision was subsequently annulled by the Court of First
Instance. Following delivery of the judgment annulling the
decision, the appointing authority concluded the disciplinary
proceedings by imposing on the applicant the disciplinary
measure of downgrading from grade A3 to grade A6, that
being a more severe penalty than the one recommended by
the Disciplinary Board. The present action is directed against
that decision.

In support of his claim for annulment, the applicant argues
that the defendant failed to discharge its obligation to establish
the veracity of its complaints — the onus of proof being
incumbent on it in that regard. It likewise disregarded the
presumption of innocence. According to the applicant, his
wife’s employment contract was perfectly regular and there
was no connection between the duties performed by him and
the conclusion of his wife’s employment contract. In addition,
he pleads, inter alia, violation of the right to a fair hearing, a
manifest error of assessment and the disproportionate nature
of the sanction imposed.

Lastly, the applicant asserts that the appointing authority is
liable for the damage suffered by him as a result of the
unlawful acts invoked.