Case T-143/03: Action brought on 29 April 2003 by Elisabeth Saskia Smit v Europol
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Europol, action for annulment (EU), staff, work contract

C 213/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2003

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE

(3) order Europol to pay the applicant compensation includ-

ing in any event the costs of the proceedings.

of 25 June 2003

in Case T-175/03 R: Norbert Schmitt v European Agency
for Reconstruction

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Interim relief — Admissibility)

(2003/C 213/71)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-175/03 R: Norbert Schmitt, residing in Koellerbach
(Germany), represented by L. Polanz, lawyer, against European
Agency for Reconstruction (Agent: C. Manolopoulos) —
application for suspension of operation of the decision of the
European Agency for Reconstruction to revoke the applicant’s
contract of employment — the President of the Court of First
Instance has made an order on 25 June 2003, the operative
part of which is as follows:

1.

2.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

Costs are reserved.

Action brought on 29 April 2003 by Elisabeth Saskia Smit
v Europol

(Case T-143/03)

(2003/C 213/72)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

The applicant has worked for the defendant since 1 July 1999.
On 1 July 2003 her contract expires. However, the applicant’s
request for a renewal of her contract was rejected by the
defendant. The applicant is challenging that decision.

In support of her application the applicant first alleges an
infringement of the duty to provide a statement of reasons.

The applicant goes on to assert that the defendant exceeded its
policy-making powers. The defendant drew up basic principles,
policy rules and a stage plan to ensure that contracts are
extended in a clear and transparent manner. According to the
applicant the defendant exceeded its margin of discretion in
the application of those rules.

Finally, the applicant submits that there was an infringement
of the duty of care, as well as an infringement of the principle
of equal treatment.

Lastly, the applicant asserts that the defendant misused its
competence. The applicant states that the Netherlands Minister
for Home Affairs carried out a security check on the applicant
at the defendant’s request. That investigation disclosed nothing
adverse against the applicant. However, according to the
applicant, the mere fact that a security check was carried out
constituted the actual reason for the refusal to extend her
contract.

Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Jose Maria Sison
against the Council of the European Union

An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities on 29 April 2003
by Elisabeth Saskia Smit, represented by P. de Casparis and
M.F. Baltussen.

(Case T-150/03)

(2003/C 213/73)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: English)

(1)

annul the rejection by Europol on 25 February 2003
of the applicant’s complaint against the decision of
30 September 2002, together with the latter decision;

(2) order Europol to extend the applicant’s contract of
employment until 1 July 2007 or such other date as the
Court may determine;

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 30 April 2003 by Jose Maria Sison, Utrecht,
the Netherlands, represented by Mr J. Fermon, Mr A. Comte,
Mr E. Schultz and Mr D. Gurses, lawyers.