Case T-284/02: Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Triantafyllia Dionyssopoulou against Council of the European Union
Date: 2002-11-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

C 289/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.11.2002

Action brought on 23 September 2002 by Gemeinschafts-
kernkraftwerk Neckar GmbH against Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-283/02)

(2002/C 289/55)

(Language of the Case: German)

infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expec-
tations. Moreover, the defendant caused the breakdown of the
contractual negotiations and thus infringed the principle of
proper administration. The infringement of those principles
caused a loss to the applicant in the amount of the sum
claimed.

Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Triantafyllia
Dionyssopoulou against Council of the European Union

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 September 2002 by Gemein-
schaftskernkraftwerk Neckar GmbH, Neckarwestheim (Ger-
many), represented by S. Zickgraf, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Case T-284/02)

(2002/C 289/56)

(Language of the case: French)

— order

the defendant

applicant
to
EUR 332 083,60 together with interest of 5,25 % since
12.6.2000 on the sum of EUR 328 782,43 and interest
of 5,25 % since 21.8.2000 on the sum of EUR 3 301,17;

pay

the

to

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on10 September 2002 by Triantafyllia Dionys-
sopoulou, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean A. Martin,
lawyer.

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

From September 1994 to July 1998 the applicant supplied
services in the context of the TACIS Programme at the
Ukrainian atomic power station in Saporoshje. The parties had
concluded Direct Agreements in that regard.
In order to
perform the contracts the applicant employed various experts
and appointed a project manager.

According to the application, although the applicant was not
contractually bound to appoint a project manager after August
1998, the project manager provided ‘on-site-assistance’ at the
Saporoshje nuclear power station from August 1998 to
December 1999. The experts also continued to work on the
individual projects in Saporoshje. Already in April 1998 the
parties were negotiating on the conclusion of a fourth contract,
which, however, was ultimately not concluded.

The applicant claims that it has suffered a loss in the amount
of the sum claimed as a result of a non-contractual situation
and that the defendant is required to compensate that loss in
accordance with Article 288(2) EC. By promising that the
applicant would obtain a contract or payment from another
source, the defendant created an expectation in the applicant
which caused it to work for the defendant without a contract.
By ultimately not fulfilling that expectation, the defendant

— annul the decision of the Council not to promote the
applicant to Grade C 2 during the 2001 promotion
procedure;

— order the Council to pay to the applicant EUR 300 000 to
compensate her for all the damage suffered by her;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the length of

In support of her arguments, the applicant alleges manifest
error of assessment in that the defendant has failed to take
the
into account, even in the alternative,
applicant’s period of service in her grade. The applicant alleges
moreover that the defendant failed to observe Article 5 of the
Staff Regulations in that there is a contradiction between the
applicant’s skills and her being kept at her grade. According to
the applicant, the defendant has also failed to observe the
resolutions adopted by the Joint Committee of 16 July 1993
inasmuch as the defendant took into account
the actual
number of days worked by the applicant and the number of
days taken as sick leave. Finally, the applicant points out that
the Staff Regulations require that officials be respected and, if
necessary, helped and also lays a duty on the employer to have
regard for officials’ welfare. In the present case, the applicant
is the victim of harassment with the result that progress in her
career has been hindered.