Removal from the register of Case T-258/97
Date: 2002-08-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Italy, action for annulment (EU), farm prices, storage cost, sugar industry

C 202/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.8.2002

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1)

annul the tacit rejection by Europol of the applicant’s
complaint against the decision of 23 November 2001,
and at the same time annul the contested decision of
23 November 2001;

(1)

annul the tacit rejection by Europol of the applicant’s
complaint against the decision of 23 November 2001,
and at the same time annul the contested decision of
23 November 2001;

(2) order Europol, primarily, to award the applicant two
additional salary increments, effective from 1 July 2001;
alternatively, order Europol to award the applicant one
additional salary increment, effective from 1 July 2001;

(3) order Europol to pay to the applicant, within 48 hours
after delivery of the judgment to be given in this case,
what is due to her thereunder, together with interest at
the statutory rate prescribed by Netherlands law;

(4) order Europol to pay to the applicant, within 48 hours
after delivery of the judgment to be given in this case, the
sum of 1 000 euros by way of compensation for the non-
material damage suffered by her;

(5) order Europol to indemnify the applicant in respect of

the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is employed at Europol. The contested decision
adopted by the defendant did not award the applicant a salary
increase to which she considers herself to be entitled.

The applicant claims that the decision in question infringes
Article 29 of the Europol Staff Regulations. According to the
applicant, the Management Board has failed to lay down the
necessary rules for the award of salary increases in accordance
with that article. The applicant further pleads that the Director
exceeded his discretionary powers, inasmuch as the decision-
making procedure does not satisfy the requirements of regard
for the welfare and interests of staff and of impartiality. Lastly,
the applicant pleads infringement of the principles of equal
treatment and of the protection of legitimate expectations.

Action brought on 5 July 2002 by Andreas Mausolf
against Europol

(Case T-209/02)

(2002/C 202/64)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(2) order Europol to award the applicant two additional

salary increments, effective from 1 July 2001;

(3) order Europol to pay to the applicant, within 48 hours
after delivery of the judgment to be given in this case,
what is due to him thereunder, together with interest at
the statutory rate prescribed by Netherlands law;

(4) order Europol to indemnify the applicant in respect of

the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is employed at Europol. The contested decision
adopted by the defendant did not award the applicant a salary
increase to which he considers himself to be entitled.

The applicant claims that the decision in question infringes
Article 29 of the Europol Staff Regulations. According to the
applicant, the Management Board has failed to lay down the
necessary rules for the award of salary increases in accordance
with that article. The applicant further pleads that the Director
exceeded his discretionary powers, inasmuch as the decision-
making procedure does not satisfy the requirements of regard
for the welfare and interests of staff and of impartiality. Lastly,
the applicant pleads infringement of the principles of equal
treatment and of the protection of legitimate expectations.

Removal from the register of Case T-258/97 (1)

(2002/C 202/65)

(Language of the Case: Italian)

By order of 12 June 2002 the President of the Fourth Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-258/97:
Società Eridania SpA and Others v Council of the European
Union.

An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities on 5 July 2002
by Andreas Mausolf, residing at Leiden (Netherlands), rep-
resented by Maria Franciscus Baltussen and Pauline de Casparis,
lawyers.

(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.