Case T-328/01: Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Tony Robinson against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-03-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European official, action by staff, action for annulment (EU), appointment of staff, staff assessment

2.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 56/19

In that decision, the Commission explains that, in 1993, when
examining previous requests by the applicant for co-financing,
it concluded that the applicant was not eligible for such co-
financing inasmuch as it did not meet the applicable criteria,
and that once the competent departments declare an NGO
to be ineligible for Community co-financing that decision
automatically results in the rejection of any projects sub-
sequently submitted, until such time as the NGO meets the
eligibility criteria. In the applicant’s view, that approach is not
in conformity either with European Union law or with the
principles of sound administration.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges infringement
of the general provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff
Regulations, breach of the principle of sound administration
and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. In
particular, the procedure for drawing up the staff report was
considerably delayed and was followed without consulting the
ad hoc group, which was essential in view of the union duties
undertaken by the applicant.

The applicant also states that the Commission has constantly
maintained, both in the contested decision and in the course
of
the procedure which took place before the European
Ombudsman following the complaints lodged by the appli-
cant,
the applicant had acted fraudulently in order
to obtain financing funds. The applicant asserts that that
assessment is unfounded and that the contested decision is
therefore unjustified.

that

Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Luciano Lavag-
noli against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-327/01)

(2002/C 56/34)

(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 21 December 2001 by Luciano
Lavagnoli, residing in Berchem (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg),
represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— grant the applicant BEF 500 000 (EUR 12 396,49) by
way of damages in compensation for non-material dam-
age caused as a result of the failure, to date, to draw up a
definitive staff report for the period 1 July 1997 to
30 June 1999;

— make an appropriate order as to costs ordering the

defendant to pay the costs and fees.

Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Tony Robinson
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-328/01)

(2002/C 56/35)

(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 21 December 2001 by Tony
Robinson, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision taken at the meeting of the Bureau of
the ESP Parliamentary Group on 6 and 7 March 2001 in
Brussels to the effect
the
Secretary-General, the Bureau decided to promote two
persons other than the applicant to Grade A 3 with effect
from 1 March 2001;

that, on the proposal of

— compensate the applicant to the tune of EUR 10 000;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges infringement
of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and infringement of the
rules of procedure of the secretariat of the socialist group, as
well as breach of general principles of
law such as the
principles of sound administration, the protection of legitimate
expectations, legal certainty and equal treatment. Furthermore,
the applicant alleges error of assessment, misuse of powers
and ultra vires. According to the applicant, consideration of his
merits should have necessarily resulted in his promotion rather
than in that of the persons promoted by way of the contested
decision.