Case T-198/02: Action brought on 28 June 2002 by "N" against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-09-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), administrative sanction, pension scheme, social status

28.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 233/25

— Vice-President Kinnock is asked to enter into negotiations
with the trade unions/staff organisations and to propose
for adoption by the Commission, before the end of March
2002, a new framework agreement and to include in the
series of amendments on which the trade unions and
staff organisations are to be consulted an amendment
providing for the opportunity to adopt electoral rules by
way of a vote by the staff of the institution.

In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:

— clear intent to circumvent the judgment of the Court of
First Instance of 22 November 2001 delivered in Case
T-349/00 Lebedef v Commission;

— infringement of the 1974 framework agreement and of

the principle ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’;

— absence of any objective examination of the representativ-
ity of the trade unions/staff organisations and manifest
error
rep-
resentativity;

in the comparative assessment of

that

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— allow the application;

— annul the contested measure;

— order the defendant to pay EUR 12 500 in respect of the
material and non-material harm suffered by the applicant;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs irrespec-

tive of the outcome of the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1)

Failure on the part of the defendant to comply with the
judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-182/99
by which the decision not to promote the applicant was
annulled.

(2) Misuse of procedure.

— infringement of the principle of non-discrimination;

(3) Misuse of powers.

— infringement of the rights of the defence;

(4) Unreasonable exercise by the defendant of its discretion

in relation to promotions.

— breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expec-

tations;

(5)

Incorrect exercise of that discretion.

— failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons;

— failure to comply with the duty to have regard for the

welfare and interests of officials;

— infringement of Article 24a of the Statute and of the

principle of the freedom of trade union activity.

(6)

(7)

(8)

Sham re-examination of the applicant’s candidature for
promotion.

Superiority of the mark of the applicant, who was not
promoted, vis-à-vis the marks of those promoted.

Liability for a wrongful act on the part of the defendant,
causing the applicant material and non-material harm.

Action brought on 2 July 2002 by Georgios Karavelis
against the European Parliament

Action brought on 28 June 2002 by ‘N’ against Com-
mission of the European Communities

(Case T-197/02)

(2002/C 233/46)

(Language of the Case: Greek)

(Case T-198/02)

(2002/C 233/47)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
2 July 2002 by Georgios Karavelis, resident in Brussels,
represented by K. Tagaras, Lawyer, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 June 2002 by ‘N’, represented
by Nicola Lhoëst, lawyer.

C 233/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

28.9.2002

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 25 February
2002 imposing on the applicant the penalty provided for
in Article 86(2)(f) of
the Staff Regulations, namely
removal from post without loss of entitlement to pension;

— annul the Commission’s decision of 27 July 2001 refusing
to classify the applicant in the higher grade of his career
bracket in accordance with Article 31(2) of the Staff
Regulations;

— annul any connected and/or subsequent decision;

— order

the Commission to pay to the

applicant
EUR 12 500 by way of compensation for non-material
damage;

— annul,

in so far as is necessary, the express decision
adopted by the Court of Auditors on 26 February 2002
in which it rejected the complaint submitted by the
applicant pursuant to Article 90(2) of those regulations;

— order the Court of Auditors to pay all the costs of these

— order the Commission to pay the entire costs.

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was found guilty of a number of criminal
offences by the Cour d’Appel, Brussels. However, that court
ordered a suspended sentence of 5 years subject to a number
of conditions in order to avoid affecting the applicant’s civic
status.

Subsequently, in view of the seriousness of the offences, the
Commission removed the applicant from his post without loss
of entitlement to pension.

In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges lack of a
statement of reasons and breach of the rights of the defence.
Moreover, the applicant claims that the disciplinary measure is
disproportionate to the seriousness of the effect of his conduct
on the institution and his work. Finally, the applicant alleges
infringement of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.

The applicant in this case, a former official of the Commission
and the Court of Auditors of the European Communities,
contests the refusal of the appointing authority to classify him
in the higher grade of his career bracket at the time of his
recruitment to grade B5 step 3, following his inclusion on the
list of suitable candidates drawn up on the basis of competition
No COM/B/340.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges that:

— substantive errors and manifest errors of assessment were
made in respect of his professional qualifications, the
length and relevance of his professional experience with
regard to the post to be filled, and the level of his
remuneration in his successive positions;

— the obligation to state reasons was not observed.

Action brought on 28 June 2002 by Pierre Tomarchio
against the Court of Auditors of the European Communi-
ties

Action brought on 2 July 2002 by The Sunrider Corpor-
ation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market

(Case T-201/02)

(2002/C 233/48)

(Case T-203/02)

(2002/C 233/49)

(Language of the case: French)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 28 June 2002 by Pierre
Tomarchio, residing in Nancy (France), represented by Nicolas
Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 July 2002 by The Sunrider
Corporation, represented by Mr Axel Kockläuner of Meissner,
Bolte & Partner in Munich, Germany.