Case T-208/03: Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Stavroula Gogos-Skarpatzi and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-08-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, Greece, action for annulment (EU), allowances and expenses, redemption, regulations for civil servants

C 184/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2003

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
changing, with effect from a year not further specified
(1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
the
during which the applicant was an official of
Commission of the European Communities), the proce-
dure for calculating the annual expense of travelling to
Greece in respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken into
consideration for the destination of Athens;

or, in the alternative,

— annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified
(1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
during which the applicant was an official of
the
Commission of the European Communities), the cost of
the sea passage from Brindisi to various Greek frontier
posts (Corfu,
Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of an
‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;

— annul all

the applicant's pay slips

implementing the

decisions annulment of which is sought;

— reimburse to the applicant all

the amounts not paid
following implementation of the decisions annulment of
which is sought, together with legal interest;

— make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the
Commission of the European Communities to pay those
costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

European Communities on 11 June 2003 by Stavroula Gogos-
Skarpatzi, residing in Waterloo (Belgium), and 11 other offi-
cials, represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
changing, with effect from a year not further specified
(1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-
sion of
the procedure for
calculating the annual expense of travelling to Greece in
respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken into consid-
eration for
the Greek islands, when travel must be
through Athens or Piraeus;

the European Communities),

or, in the alternative,

— annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified
(1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-
sion of the European Communities), the cost of the sea
passage from Brindisi
to various Greek frontier posts
Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft
(Corfu,
type seat’ ticket;

— annul all

the applicants' pay slips

implementing the

decisions annulment of which is sought;

The applicant in this case seeks the annulment of the Commis-
sion's decision changing the method of calculating annual
travel expenses to Greece.

— reimburse to the applicants all

the amounts not paid
following implementation of the decisions annulment of
which is sought, together with legal interest;

The pleas in law and main arguments put
forward by the
applicant in support of his application are similar to those of
the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).

— make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the
Commission of the European Communities to pay those
costs.

(1) OJ C 247, 12.10.02, p. 17.
(2) OJ C 101, 26.04.03, p. 40.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Stavroula Gogos-
the
Skarpatzi and Others against

the Commission of

European Communities

The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Commis-
sion's decision changing the method of calculating annual
travel expenses to Greece.

(Case T-208/03)

(2003/C 184/113)

(Language of the case: French)

The pleas in law and main arguments put
forward by the
applicants in support of their application are similar to those
of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).

(1) OJ C 247, 12.10.02, p. 17.
(2) OJ C 101, 26.04.03, p. 40.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the