Case T-153/01: Action brought on 4 July 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez Moreno against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-09-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), age discrimination, equal treatment, information profession, servant (EU)

29.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 275/11

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— assess the right of Fedon and order the Community to
pay compensation of LIT 4 432 590 743 or such other
sum as the Court may consider reasonable, subject to the
possibility of adjustment for the duration of the obligation
to pay additional duties, plus interest at
the Italian
statutory rate from the time of actual payment by Fedon
to the American customs administration of 95,4 % of the
value of the goods (increased duties), until settlement,
plus interest for delay of 8%, in accordance with Com-
munity case-law, in the event of delay in paying the sum
claimed;

— order the Community to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, which export spectacle cases to the United
States, claim damages for loss following the adoption by the
United States of certain retaliatory commercial measures
affecting their industry.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case T-69/00 FIAM and FIAM Technologies v Council and
Commission (1).

(1) OJ C 135 of 13. 5. 2000, p. 30.

The applicant, a European Central Bank employee, is the father
of
two sons. He applied for an education allowance in
respect of his sons’ attendance at an international school. The
defendant refused that application, referring to the fact that
the applicant did not satisfy the conditions for receiving the
allowance since he was not entitled to an expatriation allow-
ance of 16 %.

The applicant submits that the refusal to grant the education
allowance is contrary to Treaty rights conferred on him and in
particular infringes the duty owed by the defendant to have
regard for his interests.

He also submits that Article 19(i) of
the Conditions of
Employment offends against the principle of equal treatment.
The defendant has acknowledged in Article 9(c) of
the
Conditions of Employment that it is obliged to observe that
principle. An education allowance under Article 19 of the
Conditions of Employment is granted only to employees who
already satisfy the conditions for the grant of an expatriation
allowance. Therefore, two categories of employees, namely
employees who meet those conditions and employees who do
not, are treated differently. The unequal treatment would be
objectively justified only if the aim of the expatriation allow-
ance were identical to that of the education allowance, which
is not the case. The aims of the allowances are fundamentally
different, so that it is not justified to link the grant of an
education allowance pursuant to Article 19(i) of the Conditions
of Employment to the conditions for an expatriation allowance
pursuant to Article 17.

Action brought on 6 July 2001 by Emanuele Nicastro
against the European Central Bank

(Case T-152/01)

(2001/C 275/24)

(Language of the Case: German)

Action brought on 4 July 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez
Moreno against Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-153/01)

(2001/C 275/25)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 6 July 2001 by Emanuele Nicastro, of Frankfurt am Main,
represented by Dr Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and Silvia
Mittländer, Lawyers.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 July 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez
Moreno, residing in Berlin, represented by Georges Vander-
sanden and Dominique Dugois, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision by the European Central Bank to
refuse him an education allowance for his two sons;

— order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision taken by the defendant to apply an
age limit set at 65 years to freelance interpreters and
therefore to apply that age limit to her;

C 275/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.9.2001

— make good the damage caused to the applicant provision-

ally assessed at 1 euro;

Action brought on 10 July 2001 by Robert Walton against
the Commission of the European Communities.

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a freelance interpreter who has worked
regularly for the Commission since 1986. After her 65th birth-
day, the applicant noticed that the Commission no longer
contacted her with new offers of work. Later, the Commission
informed the applicant of its decision no longer to engage
conference interpreters over the age of 65 and thus no longer
to call on her services on that ground. According to the
Commission, that decision was taken after the Council adopted
Regulation No 628/2000 (1) amending Article 78 of
the
Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the Communi-
ties (CES).

subject

the employment of

freelance interpreters

According to the applicant, the Commission gives Article 78
of the CES as the reason for its decision to make termination
of
to
Article 74 of the CES, and thus subject also to the age limit of
65 years. However, the applicant claims that Article 74 is
clearly not intended to govern the situation of
freelance
interpreters. It is not feasible to consider that the engagement
of an interpreter ceases as provided for by Article 74 ‘at the
end of the month in which the agent reaches the age of
65 years’, since such engagement could be reduced to a matter
of days. Any age limit in respect of the provision of services
by freelance interpreters can therefore be considered to be a
condition which applies only in the event of recruitment of a
freelance interpreter. However, there is no statutory provision
regarding any age limit with regard to pursuit of their activities.

The applicant claims that to subject freelance interpreters who
provide their services to the Community institutions to an
age limit constitutes discrimination between those freelance
interpreters who provide their services to the Community
institutions and those who do not.

In support of her claims, the applicant pleads, moreover,
breach of the principle of non-retroactivity, acquired rights,
legitimate expectations, sound administration and legal cer-
tainty. In addition to her claims for annulment, the applicant
also seeks compensation for material and non-material damage
allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission’s decision.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 628/2000 of
20 March 2000 amending Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC)
No 259/68 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of
Other Servants of the Communities (OJ L 76 of 25.3.2000, p. 1).

(Case T-155/01)

(2001/C 275/26)

(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 10 July 2001 by Robert Walton,
residing in Oxford (UK), represented by Paul Harris of Monck-
ton Chambers, London (UK).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Annul the Commission decision of 3 October 2000;

2. Declare that that decision and/or the Commission’s letter
of termination was unlawful and/or in breach of the
notice of termination provisions in Article 5 of the
contract and/or Article 47 of the Conditions of Employ-
ment of Other Servants of the European Communities;

3. Order the Commission to pay the applicant compen-
sation for breach of contract, and/or for breach of
in the
Article 47 of the Conditions of Employment,
amounts referred to in the compensation section of this
application;

4. Order the Commission to pay to the applicant his costs;

and

5.

Take such further measures and grant such further relief,
under the Statute of the Court of Justice and/or Rules of
Procedure of the Court of First Instance, as may be
necessary, just or equitable.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case is a Chartered Engineer,
specialising in power and nuclear projects, who in October
1999 was recruited by the Commission to set up in Research
Directorate-General XII a help desk for small and medium-
sized enterprises involved with innovation and research.

The application seeks the annulment of the decision contained
in a letter of termination, of 3 October 2000, which purported
to ‘terminate [the applicant’s] employment’, ‘with effect from
16.10.2000’.

The applicant claims wrongful dismissal and states to that end
that:

— The commencement date of the contract was 1 November

1999.