Case T-195/03: Action brought on 4 June 2003 by Gustav Thommes against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-08-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), allowances and expenses, reassignment, regulations for civil servants

23.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/25

Action brought on 28 May 2003 by Isabella Scippacercola
against the Commission of the European Communities

hence Article 4(4) of Regulation 1049/2001 should have been
applied.

(Case T-187/03)

(2003/C 200/45)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Isabella
European Communities on 28 May 2003 by
by
Scippacercola,
Dr K. Adamantopoulos and Mr D. Papakrivopoulos,
lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

represented

Belgium,

Brussels,

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission decision in the form of a letter
dated 19 March 2003 and notified to the applicant by fax
of 31 March 2003, refusing to the latter access to the
cost-benefit study relating to the construction of
the
Spata Airport;

— order that the costs of, and occasioned by, these proceed-

ings be borne by the respondent.

The applicant also claims in this respect that the Commission
infringed Article 1(a) of Regulation 1049/2001 and the prin-
ciple of the widest possible access to documents held by the
Commission.

Secondly, the applicant invokes a violation of Article 4(5) of
Regulation 1049/2001 and Article 5(4) of Decision 2001/937
(sic) to the extent that the Commission failed to assess the
justification given by Greece and, in doing so, gave a de facto
power of veto to the Member State concerned.

The applicant furthermore invokes a violation of the obligation
finally, a violation of Article 4(6) of
to state reasons and,
Regulation 1049/2001 to the extent
the Commission
that
have allegedly failed to examine whether partial access should
have been granted.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European
Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, p. 43).
(2) 2001/937/EC, ECSC, Euratom: Commission Decision of 5 December
2001 amending its rules of procedure (notified under document
number C(2001) 3714) (OJ L 345, p. 94).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 4 June 2003 by Gustav Thommes
against the Commission of the European Communities

The applicant has requested from the Commission, amongst
others, a copy of
the cost-benefit analysis concerning the
creation of the Spata Airport. According to the applicant, this
document should have accompanied the application by Greece
for assistance from the Cohesion Fund. The request for access
to documents was refused by the Commission. With the
refusal however,
the
application for assistance from the Cohesion Fund, which
contained a short description of the main topics of the cost-
benefit analysis. The confirmatory application by the applicant
was also rejected.

the Commission transmitted part of

In support of its application, the applicant submits in the first
place that the Commission made a manifest error in law and a
manifest error in the appreciation of the facts. According to
the applicant, the Commission erred in its assumption that the
document for which access was requested originated from a
Member State. According to the applicant, Greece was not the
original creator of the document, but merely forwarded the
document as part of
its application for assistance from the
Cohesion Fund.

The applicant claims that, as a consequence, the Commission
wrongly relied on and misinterpreted Article 4(5) of Regulation
1049/2001 (1) regarding public access to European Parliament,
Council and Commission documents and Article 5(4) of Deci-
sion 2001/937 (2) (sic). The applicant claims that the document
should have been considered as a third party document and

(Case T-195/03)

(2003/C 200/46)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 June 2003 by Gustav Thommes,
residing in Wezembeek-Oppem in Brussels (Belgium), repre-
sented by M. Thewes,
lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant's decisions of 17 July 2002, 1 August

2002 and 3 March 2003;

— declare void the recovery of

the second half of

the

installation allowance for the resettlement of his family;

— grant the applicant the installation allowance in respect of

his transfer to Brussels;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-

ings.

C 200/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.8.2003

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant
is an official at the Commission. He worked
from 1992 to 2000 in Brussels. In 2000 he was transferred to
Luxembourg and then on 1 September 2001 he was trans-
ferred back to Brussels, where he moved back into the house
in which he had previously lived.

The applicant alleges infringement of Article 5(1) of Annex VII
to the Staff Regulations. In his view, he and his family did in
fact move their family residence to his place of service in
Luxembourg. His transfer back to Brussels cannot therefore be
regarded as a return to his family residence.

is justified only if

the Staff
The applicant submits that, under Article 85 of
the
Regulations, recovery of a payment
recipient was aware that
there was no due reason for the
payment or if the fact of the overpayment was patently such
that he could not have been unaware of it. In the applicant's
the payment was
opinion, he was entitled to assume that
justified as the Commission,
the facts,
had decided to grant the installation allowance.

in full knowledge of

treatment of staff members.

Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of
equal
Installation allowance is
payable to a staff member not entitled to the household
allowance but not to a staff member entitled to the household
allowance whose family have not yet settled at
that staff
member's place of service.

Action brought on 6 June 2003 by Annelies Keyman
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-200/03)

(2003/C 200/47)

(Language of the Case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 June 2003 by Annelies Keyman,
resident in Overijse, Belgium, represented by Carlos Mourato,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the appointing authority's decision of 10 March

2003 to dismiss her;

The applicant in this case contests the appointing authority's
decision to dismiss her for inadequate performance.

In support of her claims, she pleads breach of Article 51 of
the Staff Regulations since she could not in the circumstances
have been found to be in any way incompetent, breach of the
duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, misuse of
powers, breach of the right to an inter partes hearing at the
time of the administrative inquiry, and disregard of the obliga-
tion to state reasons and of the principles of proportionality
and good administration.

Finally, the applicant pleads that the principle of equal treat-
ment has been infringed since similar cases have been treated
differently.

Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-203/03)

(2003/C 200/48)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 June 2003 by Lars Bo
Rasmussen, residing in Hellerup (Denmark),
represented by
Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision No 34988 of 1 July 2000;

— annul

the decision of 21 January 2003 rejecting the

complaint;

— order the defendant to repay the sums wrongfully recov-
ered on the basis of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations
together with interest for late payment;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant 10 000 EUR in
damages or any other amount, even greater,
the
Court may decide is equitable in compensation for the
non-material damage sustained;

that

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— order the defendant to pay the costs, expenses and fees.