Case T-406/03: Action brought on 15 December 2003 by Nicolas Ravailhe against Committee of the Regions of the European Union
Date: 2004-02-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Committee of the Regions, right of action, servant (EU)

21.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/31

Action brought on 16 December 2003 by A against the
Court of Justice of the European Communities

Action brought on 15 December 2003 by Nicolas Ravailhe
against Committee of the Regions of the European Union

(Case T-404/03)

(2004/C 47/60)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-406/03)

(2004/C 47/61)

(Language of the case: French)

the Court of

An action against
the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 16 December 2003 by A,
represented by Clara Marhuenda, lawyer, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

Justice of

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the two decisions adopted by the defendant, in its
capacity as appointing authority, on 10 April 2003 and
6 June 2003 and, in so far as necessary, the decision of
the defendant’s complaints committee of 16 September
2003 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant EUR 1 as
token damages for the non-material damage suffered;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following several absences of the applicant, an official of the
Court of Justice, on sick leave, the defendant, in its capacity as
appointing authority, referred the matter to an invalidity
committee in order to determine whether the official could be
granted retirement on grounds of invalidity.

The committee met on 9 April 2003 and decided that the
official was fit to return to duties, but proposed that the official
be granted half-time working hours on medical grounds. By
letter of 10 April 2003, the Court of Justice called on the
applicant to return to work and granted authorisation for half-
time working until 6 June 2003 inclusive. By decision of
6 June 2003, the half-time working hours on medical grounds
was extended by 5 weeks and the applicant was requested to
return to work full-time on 14 July 2003.

By the present application, the applicant contests those two
decisions, claiming that the opinion of the medical committee
on which they are based is vitiated by a defective statement of
reasons. The applicant further claims that at least two members
of the committee did not have available all the information
necessary in order to make a decision in full knowledge of the
case.

An action against the Committee of the Regions of the
European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 15 December 2003 by
Nicolas Ravailhe, residing in Amiens (France), represented by
Jean Philippe Brodsky, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to reinstate the applicant in his post
and restore his rights under the Staff Regulations as a
member of the temporary staff of the Committee of the
Regions with effect from 1 March 2003, taking account
of his salary and allowances as a member of the temporary
staff (March 2003-April 2003), subsequently as unem-
ployed (May 2003-October 2003) and of any other
income received until he is actually reinstated;

— In the alternative, order the defendant to pay to the
applicant compensation in accordance with Article 47 of
the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the
European Communities, namely three months’ salary and
allowances as a member of the temporary staff in Grade
A 7, step 3, together with default interest with effect from
15 June 2003;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages of
EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for the non-
material damage suffered;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
of Articles 2(b) and 8 of the Conditions of Employment of
Other Servants of the European Communities and,
in the
alternative, failure to observe the period of notice laid down in
Articles 47 and 74 of those Conditions. Furthermore, he
alleges breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
officials and the principles of legitimate expectations, sound
administration and the interests of the service.