Case T-376/02: Action brought on 9 December 2002 by "O" against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-02-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), disability insurance, pension scheme

22.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/37

Pleas in law and main arguments

the appointing
The applicant challenges the decision of
authority not to grant his request
that the judgment of
the Tribunal de Paix de Luxembourg (Magistrates’ Court,
Luxembourg) of 26 November 1998 be correctly implemented
and that, consequently, the termination of attachment which
was ordered, with effect from 11 November 1998, in respect
of sums deducted by way of attachment from the salary of an
official of the defendant institution take effect on that date and
not in March 1998.

In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:

— the principle under which the institutions are bound by a
duty to cooperate in good faith with national institutions;

— that the attachment procedure is entirely legal as regards

Community law.

Action brought on 17 December 2002 by Alessandro
Cavallaro against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-375/02)

(2003/C 44/70)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 December 2002 by Alessandro
Cavallaro, represented by C. Forte, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the decision of

the Appointing Authority of
11 September 2002 to give him insufficient marks
for written test (e) of the Open Competition for the
recruitment of administrators (Grade A 7/A 6) COM/A/
6/01 and, in consequence, not to admit him to the oral
tests in that competition;

— annul the subsequent stages of that competition, in so far

as is necessary to restore the applicant’s rights;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

for the recruitment of administrators (Grade A 7/A 6) in the
field of External Relations and Management of Aid to Third
Countries, selecting ‘External Relations’, challenges the decision
of the Commission, the examining body, to assess his test (e)
— written test — at one point below that necessary (19/40)
for admission to the oral test.

In support of his claims the applicant alleges:

— Misuse of powers, insufficient statement of reasons and
breach of the rights of the defence as regards the refusal
to give him information as to the marking criteria let
alone the marking procedure and the marks of the
individual examiners.

— Breach of Article 3 of the Staff Regulations, insufficient
statement of reasons and breach of the rights of the
defence as regards the refusal to provide information as
to the linguistic knowledge of the third examiner.

— Breach of the principle of equal treatment in the test and
of the principle of sound administration. In that respect
it is stated that the material distributed to the candidates
in Italian was not prepared with sufficient care. It should
also be noted that there was inconsistency in the grounds
relating to the interpretation of
the ‘instructions to
candidates’.

— Clear error of fact in the marking of the first answer in

written test (e) of the competition.

— Misrepresentation of the truth, illogicality and contradic-
tory grounds as regards the marking of the second answer
in written test (e) of the competition.

Action brought on 9 December 2002 by ‘O’ against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-376/02)

(2003/C 44/71)

(Language of the case: French)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in this case, who had applied to take Open
Competition COM/A/6/01 for the constitution of a reserve list

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 December 2002 by ‘O’, represent-
ed by Jean Van Rossum, Lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

C 44/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.2.2003

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— annul the Commission’s decision of 14 January 2002 to
retire the applicant on an invalidity pension set
in
accordance with the third paragraph of Article 78 of the
Staff Regulations;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an official of the Commission. The contested
decision forced the applicant into retirement with the benefit
of an invalidity pension set in accordance with the third
paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations.

In support of his application, the applicant alleged infringe-
ment of Article 7 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations and
infringement of the provisions relating to the operation of
the Invalidity Committees. According to the applicant, the
Invalidity Committee was not properly formed. The applicant
also argues a breach of the duty to state reasons.

The applicant is an official of the Commission and worked in
the Berlaymont building, where he was exposed to asbestos.
In 2001 the applicant asked to be given an invalidity pension
on the basis of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations. That request
was refused by the Commission.

The applicant claims, first, that in rejecting his complaint the
Commission misconstrued the facts which led to the appli-
cant’s complaining about the malfunctioning of the Invalidity
Committee as a result of linguistic problems.

The applicant also alleges that the principles of sound adminis-
tration and the administration’s duty to have regard to the
welfare of officials were breached, as were the principle of the
protection of legitimate expectations, the rights of the defence
and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The applicant complains of irregularities in the procedure
before the Invalidity Committee such as the abandonment of
scheduled medical examinations, the problem of communi-
cation and the absence of a lawyer at the meeting of the
Invalidity Committee.

Action brought on 17 December 2002 by ‘P’ against the
Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Antonio Andol-
fi against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-377/02)

(2003/C 44/72)

(Case T-379/02)

(2003/C 44/73)

(Language of the case: French)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 December 2002 by ‘P’, rep-
resented by Juan Ramon Iturriagagoitiia, lawyer.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 December 2002 by Antonio
Andolfi, represented by Salvatore Amato, Lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 30 September 2002
replying to the complaint lodged on 5 July 2002 by the
applicant on the basis of Article 90 of the Staff Regu-
lations of Officials and Other Servants of the European
Communities;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested provision;

— order the European Economic Community to compensate
the damages suffered and to be suffered by Seven Stars
Pictures and Phoenix European S.r.l., to be liquidated in
the course of the proceedings, together with clerical costs.