Case T-279/01: Action brought on 5 November 2001 by Giorgio Lebedef against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-01-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), indemnification, report, staff assessment

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.

5.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 3/49

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case objects to the delay with
which the appointing authority drew up his staff report for the
periods 1995 to 1997 and 1997 to 1999. That delay, in his
view, played a decisive role in his failure to be promoted to
Grade B 1.

In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement
of the first paragraph of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations,
the general provisions implementing it and breach of the
principle of sound administration. The applicant also pleads
failure to fulfil the duty to have regard for the welfare of
officials.

Action brought on 8 November 2001 by Hubert Huygens
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-281/01)

(2002/C 3/85)

(Language of the case: French)

— annul the decision of the Director of the OPOCE, in
his capacity as appointing authority, concerning the
promotion of the four officials of the Publications Office
in the 2000 promotions procedure, published in the
Administrative Notices of 6 April 2000;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks,
first, compensation for the damage
suffered as a result of substantial delay, attributable to the
administration,
in the reporting procedure for the period
1997/1999. He points out in that respect that the reporting
procedure should normally have started on 1 April 1999 and
ended before 31 December 1999, whereas in fact it did not
commence until December 1999 and was not completed
until April 2000. Meanwhile, the promotions committee had
finished its work, without being in possession of a complete
and definitive staff report on the applicant and, at
the
conclusion of the procedure, the applicant was not promoted
to Grade B 1. The applicant is of the view that the fact that the
administration did not draw up his staff report in time
constitutes an administrative fault which caused him material
damage, inasmuch as the progress of his career may be affected
by it, and non-material damage relating to the state of
uncertainty and unease in which he finds himself with regard
to his professional future.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 November 2001 by Hubert
Huygens, residing in Olm (Luxembourg), represented by Sylvie
Nyssens, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

Secondly, the applicant contests the Commission’s decision
not to promote him and the decisions to promote 54 other
officials, claiming:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the Commission to pay him EUR 27 700 as
compensation for material damage, in the event that the
applicant should not obtain his promotion to Grade B 1
in the 2000 promotions procedure on account of the
absence of a staff report;

— order

the Commission to pay to the
EUR 3 000 in compensation for non-material damage;

applicant

— annul the decision of the Commission to promote the
54 officials deemed most worthy of promotion to Grade
B 1 in the 2000 promotions procedure and, in any event,

— infringement of Articles 26, 43 and 45 of the Staff
Regulations and breach of the principles of equal treat-
ment and of sound administration;

— error of assessment of his merits; and

— infringement of the guide to staff reporting, inasmuch as
the system for quantifying marks was applied, contrary
to Annex I to the guide.