Case T-11/02: Action brought on 24 January 2002 by Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-03-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), termination of employment, transfer of pension rights

16.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 68/21

Action brought on 24 January 2002 by Spyridon de
Athanassios Pappas against Commission of the European
Communities

Action brought on 24 January 2002 by Abraham Dekker
against Europol

(Case T-11/02)

(2002/C 68/36)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-12/02)

(2002/C 68/37)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 January 2002 by Spyridon de
Athanassios Pappas, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represent-
ed by Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, lawyer.

An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities on 24 January
2002 by Abraham Dekker, residing in Dordrecht (Nether-
lands), represented by Gerrit Pieter Jongeneel and Serge
Alexsander Ray, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 26 Octo-
ber 2001 in response to his complaint (R/277/01) of
5 June 2001;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

— annul the decision of the Director of Europol of 15 June

2001;

— order that the applicant be compensated for the damage
suffered by him, to be specified in greater detail (relating
to remuneration, invalidity and harm to his reputation);

Pleas in law and main arguments

— order Europol to pay the costs.

The applicant, formerly a Director-General at the Commission,
contests the decision fixing the duration of the monthly
allowance paid to him following his retirement in the interests
of the service, decided on the basis of Article 50 of the Staff
Regulations, on the ground that it does not take into account,
in the computation, of the applicant’s period of service in
the national administrative authorities of Greece and the
Netherlands prior to his taking up his duties with the
Communities.

He argues that where an official takes up duties with the
Communities after having worked for a national adminis-
tration and such administration has paid to the Communities
the actuarial equivalent of his prior pension entitlement or, as
in his case, the sums repaid from the pension fund, the period
of former service of such official is, pursuant to Articles 11
and 12 of Annex VIII
to the Staff Regulations (General
Provisions), deemed to be actual service, that is to say service
provided within the Communities, with all the attendant legal
the
effects. The applicant
Commission ought to have taken into account his period of
service in the national administrations and that, by failing to
do so, has acted unlawfully.

therefore takes the view that

The applicant also claims that the contested decision disregards
the principle of non-discrimination and the Community rules
on freedom of movement of persons.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision prejudices the applicant, inasmuch as
his contract was extended for only six months instead of one
year, as should normally be the case. According to the
applicant, that extension of the contract was wrongly used as
a means of assessing his performance. However, such an
assessment must be carried out on the basis of Articles 2, 23
to 29 and 88 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol
employees (1). According to the applicant, however, there has
never been a negative evaluation of his skills on the basis of
those articles.

The applicant further pleads the absence of an adequate
statement of reasons for the contested decision, inasmuch as
the reasons given are not supported in any way, or are even
clearly incorrect. Moreover, according to the applicant, a
period of six months for the extension of his contract is
contrary to Article 6 of the Staff Regulations. Given that the
length of the applicant’s initial contract was one year, it should
likewise have been extended for a minimum of one year.
Lastly, the applicant pleads violation of the principle of non-
inasmuch as he is the only official whose
discrimination,
contract has not been extended for a minimum of one year.

(1) Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the staff regulations
applicable to Europol employees (OJ C 26, 30.1.1999, p. 23).