Case T-98/02: Action brought on 3 April 2002 by Maddalena Lebebef-Caponi against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-06-15
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), criminal law, evaluation method, professional association, trade union

15.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 144/55

Action brought on 28 March 2002 by Michael Hohen-
bichler against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

Action brought on 3 April 2002 by Maddalena Lebebef-
Caponi against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-95/02)

(2002/C 144/108)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-98/02)

(2002/C 144/109)

(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 28 March 2002 by Michael
Hohenbichler, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël
Louis, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision establishing the calcu-
lation of the number of years of pensionable service
under the Staff Regulations to be taken into account
pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII thereto;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case, an official of the defendant
institution,
is contesting the way in which the appointing
authority has calculated the number of years of pensionable
service to be taken into account in the context of the transfer
to the Community pension scheme of all the pension rights
acquired by him prior to his entry into the service of the
Communities.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 April 2002 by Maddalena
Lebedef-Caponi, of Senningerberg, Luxembourg, represented
lawyer, with an address for service in
by Gille Bounéou,
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the applicant’s staff report for the period 1995 to

1997;

— rule on costs; the expenses and fees should be borne by

the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant who is an official at the Commission objects to
the dismissal of her claim for annulment of her staff report for
the period 1995 to 1997.

In support of his claims, the applicant pleads infringement of:

— Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

— the general provisions

for

the implementation of

Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

— the principle of equal treatment.

In support of her action she relies on an infringement of the
last paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II of the Staff Regulations,
infringement of
the second paragraph of Article 13 of
Framework Agreement governing relations between the Com-
mission of the unions and professional organisations and
infringement of the first and second paragraphs of Article 15
of the Framework Agreement. She argues that some of the
findings are not justified and that there are various errors and
omissions in the staff report. In addition, she argues that she
suffered psychological harassment during the time when she
was acting as a staff representative.