Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 January 2002 in Case T-386/00 Margarida Gonçalves v European Parliament (Officials of the European Communities — Competition notice — Non-admission to a competition — Consistency between pleas put forward during the administrative procedure and those set out in the application — Admissibility — Statement of reasons — Administration's duty to have regard for the interests of officials and the principle of sound administration)
Date: 2002-04-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European official, action for annulment (EU), administrative competition, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

20.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 97/11

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 23 January 2002

in Case T-386/00 Margarida Gonçalves v European Parlia-
ment (1)

(Officials of the European Communities — Competition
notice — Non-admission to a competition — Consistency
between pleas put forward during the administrative proce-
dure and those set out in the application — Admissibility —
Statement of reasons — Administration’s duty to have
regard for the interests of officials and the principle of sound
administration)

(2002/C 97/22)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-386/00, Margarida Gonçalves, former member of
the temporary staff, residing in Brussels, represented by
L. Tinti, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
against European Parliament (Agents: J.F. De Wachter and
D. Moore) — application to annul the decisions of the selection
board rejecting the application of the applicant in internal
competition B/172, establishing the list of suitable candidates
and all decisions taken by the defendant on the basis of such
decisions, and for compensation for the pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damage allegedly suffered as a result of those
decisions, — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge: M. Vila-
ras); Registrar: J. Plingers, Administrator, has given a judgment
on 23 January 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

2.

The application is dismissed.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

(1) OJ 2001 C 61.

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE

context

of ALTENER-AGORES

for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: H. van Lier) — application for an order
requiring the Commission to pay the sum of 68 070 EUR in
the
contract No X-
VII/4.1030/Z/99-085, together with interest at the Belgian
statutory rate applying from 23 July 2001, to be paid within
eight days from delivery of the decision to be given, or in
default to pay a periodic penalty of 100 EUR for each day’s
delay — the President of the Court of First Instance made an
order on 7 December 2001, the operative part of which is as
follows:

1.

2.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

The costs are reserved.

Action brought on 24 January 2002 by Falk-Ulrich von
Hoff against the European Parliament

(Case T-13/02)

(2002/C 97/24)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
24 January 2002 by Falk-Ulrich von Hoff, of Berlin (Germany),
represented by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Parliament’s decision of 17 April

2001;

— order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant
the installation allowance amounting to two months’
salary, together with interest at the rate of 8 % from the
date of the request (15 March);

of 7 December 2001

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

in Case T-192/01 R: Lior GEIE v Commission of the
European Communities

(Procedure for interim relief — Payment under a contract —
Interim measures — Urgency)

(2002/C 97/23)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-192/01 R: Lior GEIE, established in Brussels, repre-
sented by V. Marien and J. Choucroun, lawyers, with an address

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the context of the transfer of the liaison centre of the
European People’s Party from Bonn to Berlin, the applicant,
whose place of employment was Brussels and who took over
as head of the liaison centre, was moved to Berlin. He applied
for the grant of an installation allowance pursuant to Article 5
of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. The institution refused
that application on the ground that the applicant had returned
to live with his family, who had already been residing in Berlin
prior to the transfer of the applicant.