Case T-99/03: Action brought on 13 March 2002 by María Luisa Atienza Morales against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-05-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), equal treatment, indemnification

24.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 124/27

In its request, the Cayman Islands Government indicated that
it entertained significant reservations about the compatibility
of certain core provisions of the draft Directive with the
fundamental principles of non-discrimination,
legitimate
expectations and proportionality in EC Law and its consistency
with the aims, purpose and wording of the Overseas Associ-
ation Decision.

In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits:

— That by deciding not to respond to an urgent request for
a PWP until after the proposed directive has been agreed
by ECOFIN, the Commission has deliberately ensured
that an effective and useful PWP cannot take place,
rendering the procedure under Article 7 of the above
mentioned Council Decision devoid of purpose, and has
placed ECOFIN and the Council in a position where these
bodies are likely to agree respectively and formally to
adopt the proposed directive in violation of the applicant’s
right to be heard.

— That the Commission is duty bound to consider requests
for PWPs submitted to it by OCTs under Article 7 of the
Overseas Association Decision. In deciding, after three
month’s delay, not to respond to the request in question,
and in failing to give adequate reasons for that decision,
the Commission has both misused its decision-making
powers under the Overseas Association Decision and
failed to respect the requirements of Article 253 EC.

( 1) OJ 2001 L 314, p. 1.

Action brought on 13 March 2002 by María Luisa Atienza
Morales against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-99/03)

(2003/C 124/47)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 March 2003 by María Luisa
Atienza Morales, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric
Boigelot, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the authority authorised to conclude
contracts of employment of 20 June 2002 refusing to
grant the applicant the expatriation allowance;

— annul the decision explicitly rejecting her complaint of

13 December 2002;

— order the defendant to pay the expatriation allowance to
the applicant as from 1 April 2002, deducting, in respect
of the past, whatever has been granted to her by way of
foreign residence allowance on the date of the judgment
to be delivered, together with default interest at the rate
of 8 % per annum, with effect from the mean date
between 1 April 2002 and the actual date of payment;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a member of the temporary staff who has since
become a probationary official at the Commission, submits
that the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employ-
ment wrongly refused to grant her the expatriation allowance
on the ground that the European Youth Forum, for which the
applicant worked from April 1995 to January 2000, did not
satisfy two of the five conditions laid down by the internal
directive adopted in October 1994 laying down five criteria to
be satisfied by organisations in order to be regarded as
‘international organisations’ for the purposes of Article 4 of
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

the applicant argues that, by
In support of her action,
refusing to grant her the expatriation allowance, the authority
authorised to conclude contracts of employment manifestly
misapplied and misinterpreted Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to
the Staff Regulations, basing its decision on reasons which
were incorrect both in fact and in law and therefore placing
the applicant in an administrative situation which was discrimi-
natory in relation to that of other officials who were in the
same position but who received that allowance.

In addition, she relies on infringement of Article 69 of the
Staff Regulations and failure to have proper regard to general
principles of law, such as those requiring the appointing
authority to observe equal treatment as between officials and
to base any decision which it takes only on legally valid
reasons.