Case T-277/01: Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Romuald Stevens against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-01-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), administrative sanction, pension scheme

5.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 3/47

Pleas in law and main arguments

on 26 October 2001 by Mély Garroni, residing in Rome,
represented by Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.

The applicant is a freelance interpreter who has worked
regularly for the European Parliament since 1986. She has also
worked regularly in the same capacity for the Commission. In
the course of the month in which she reached the age of 65,
the applicant was informed orally that the Commission had
purportedly adopted a decision providing that, under a full
application of Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment of
Other Servants of the European Communities (CEOS), free-
lance interpreters could no longer be engaged beyond the age
of 65. In December 2000 the applicant learned informally that
the European Parliament was obliged to apply that decision
with effect from 1 April 2001.

The applicant, among others, lodged a complaint against the
memorandum informing her of the inter-institutional decision
no longer to recruit freelance interpreters over the age of 65
years. The President of the European Parliament rejected that
complaint.

In support of her application,
the applicant claims that
Article 78 CEOS cannot be relied upon as a basis for a rule
setting the age of 65 years as a limit for freelance interpreters.
That provision is a derogation from the Staff Regulations and
refers to an agreement between the European Parliament, the
Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western European
Union. Article 78 makes no mention, either express or implied,
of Article 74 CEOS which provides for the termination of
auxiliary staff contracts; moreover, freelance interpreters do
not have a contract within the meaning of Article 74 CEOS.

The applicant pleads, furthermore, breach of the principle of
non-retroactivity and of the principle of non-discrimination
and of acquired rights, legitimate expectations, sound adminis-
In addition to her claims for
tration and legal certainty.
annulment, the applicant also seeks compensation for the
material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Mély Garroni
against European Parliament

(Case T-276/01)

(2002/C 3/81)

(Language of the case: French)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the inter-institutional decision of the European
Union, as referred to in the letter from G. Macario of
24 January 2001, rendering henceforth impossible for
the European Parliament, as a result of the application of
Article 78 CEOS, as amended, to retain or recruit freelance
interpreters — such as the applicant — beyond the age
of 65 years;

— in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the President
of the European Parliament, contained in a letter of
20 July 2001, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

— consequently uphold the applicant’s right to continue to
provide services to the European Parliament — or any
other institution — beyond the age-limit of 65 years;

— order provisional payment of one euro to the applicant
by way of compensation for the material and non-
material damage suffered;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied upon in Case T-275/01 Alvarez Moreno v Parliament.

Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Romuald Stevens
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-277/01)

(2002/C 3/82)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 October 2001 by Romuald
Stevens, residing in Bertem (Belgium), represented by Jean-
Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, lawyers.

C 3/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.1.2002

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay compensation amounting to

— annul the decision of the Commission of 14 December
2001 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary sanction
referred to in Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations,
namely removal from post without reduction or with-
drawal of entitlement to retirement pension;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant relies on Article 87
of the Staff Regulations and Article 7 of the Annex thereto.
According to the applicant, he was not given a proper hearing
during the disciplinary proceedings leading to the sanction in
question. Moreover, the applicant pleads breach of the obli-
gation to state reasons, manifest error of assessment and
breach of the principle of proportionality.

EUR 25 000 for non-material damage;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement
of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of the general
provisions for the implementation of that article. The applicant
pleads, moreover, numerous errors and contradictions con-
tained in the staff report, lack of statement of reasons and
breach of the rights of defence.

Action brought on 5 November 2001 by Giorgio Lebedef
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-279/01)

(2002/C 3/84)

(Language of the case: French)

Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Eric den Hamer
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-278/01)

(2002/C 3/83)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 November 2001 by Giorgio
Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented
lawyer, with an address for service in
by Gilles Bounéou,
Luxembourg.

(Language of the case: French)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 October 2001 by Eric den
Hamer, residing in Malines (Belgium), represented by Nicolas
Lhoëst, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 6 December
2000 definitively adopting the applicant’s staff report for
1995/1997;

— annul the implied decision of the Commission not to add
to the applicant’s personal file his two staff reports for
1995/1997;

— annul in part Decision No 3019 of 13 November 2000
of the appointing authority, received on 17 November
2000. More precisely, in so far as it awards BEF 25 000 to
the applicant as compensation for the non-material
damage arising from the delay in drawing up his staff
reports for the periods 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997 and
1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;

— award the applicant BEF 300 000 by way of damages to
compensate for the non-material damage arising from
the delay in definitively drawing up his staff reports for
the periods 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997;

— award the applicant BEF 100 000 by way of damages to
compensate for the non-material damage arising from
the delay in definitively drawing up his staff reports for
the periods 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;

— make an order as to costs, requiring the defendant to pay

all costs, charges and fees.