Case T-275/02: Action brought on 9 September 2002 by D against European Investment Bank
Date: 2002-10-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Investment Bank, action for annulment (EU), probationary period, termination of a contract, work contract

C 261/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

26.10.2002

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 9 September 2002 by D against
European Investment Bank

— annul the decision of the Commission notified in a letter
of 11 June 2002 concerning ERDF action No 66 and the
correction of the accounts relating to ERDF action No 67;

— order the Commission to pay the expenditure incurred
by the Comune di Napoli in these proceedings, including
in respect of lawyers’ fees.

(Case T-275/02)

(2002/C 261/38)

(Language of the case: French)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks the annulment of the decision of
11 June 2002 closing ERDF file 85 05 03 066 (hereafter ‘ERDF
No 66’) — ‘Metropolitan link between Museo and Dante’ —
by which the European Commission reduced the amount of
the contribution initially granted for completion of the project
in question and implicitly rejecting the request for adjustment
related ERDF action
of
No 85 05 03 067 (hereafter ‘ERDF No 67’) — ‘Rail link —
Naples Town Centre’. The contested decision accepted a level
of expenditure lower than the amount initially provided for and
actually incurred, and accordingly reduced the contribution
initially agreed by the defendant.

the balance relating to earlier

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
principle that legitimate expectations be protected and of
fairness, as well as failure to provide reasons.

The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission:

— gave rise, by its own previous conduct, to legitimate
expectations on the part of the applicant regarding the
possibility that it might receive the full agreed amount,
since the work covered by the intervention had been
completed as planned, and the eligible expenditure —
actually incurred and properly accounted for — were on
the whole not less than the initial planned investment.

— rejected the request for adjustment of the balance of
ERDF intervention No 67 and reduced the contribution
provided for in the context of ERDF No 66 on the ground
that the eligible expenditure was of a lower amount (in
that it was erroneously already attributed to the new
intervention), despite the fact the expenditure incurred
was on the whole greater and the acknowledgment, by
the defendant, that the work had been completed in
accordance with the project.

An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 9 September 2002 by D, represented by Joëlle Choucroun,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible and well founded;

— annul the unilateral decision of the European Investment
Bank dated 26 March 2002 concerning the four-month
extension of the six-month trial-period agreed between
the parties;

— annul the decision of the European Investment Bank
dated 25 June 2002, reproduced on 28 June 2002,
unilaterally terminating outside the trial period and with
effect from 15 July 2002 the fixed-period employment
contract with the applicant signed on 2 October 2001;

— order the European Investment Bank to pay to the
applicant EUR 45 000 (forty-five thousand euros) by way
of damages;

— order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case contests the extension of the
probation period to be worked for the defendant, together
with its unilateral termination of the applicant’s employment
contract at the end of that period.

In support of the arguments put forward, the applicant alleges:

— Infringement of the principle of legality, in that neither
the letter engaging him nor the Staff Regulations of the

26.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261/21

Bank provide for any extension of the probation period;
the bank cannot claim that there has been an amendment
in that regard.

— Infringement of the principle pacta sunt servanda, in that
the Bank did not exercise, within the probation period,
its right of termination without requiring to give reasons
and with 15 days’ notice and the defendant cannot
unilaterally modify the terms of the contract.

The applicant further alleges breach of the duty to have regard
for the welfare of officials and breach of the principle that
legitimate expectations be protected.

Removal from the register of Case T-50/01 (1)

(2002/C 261/39)

(Language of the Case: English)

By order of 11 July 2002 the President of the First Chamber of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal
from the register of Case T-50/01:
Saffron Investments N.V. v Commission of the European
Communities.

(1) OJ C 200, 14.7.2001.