Action brought on 9 February 2004 by Mohammad Reza Fardoom and Marie José Reinard against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), professional career, promotion, staff assessment

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/49

Action brought on 6 February 2004 by Emma Bonino and
seven other applicants against European Parliament and
Council of the European Union

(Case T-40/04)

(2004/C 94/133)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 3 February 2004 by
Emma Bonino and Others, represented by Georges Vander-
sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regu-
lations governing political parties at European level and the
rules regarding their funding;

— Make an appropriate order as to costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In these proceedings, the act whose annulment is sought is the
same as in Cases T-13/04 Donde and Others v European Parlia-
ment and Council and T-17/04 National Front and Others v
European Parliament and Council; the pleas and main argu-
ments are similar to those put forward in those cases.

The applicants also claim that the contested regulation infringes
the EC Treaty in that it provides that the European Parliament
is to combine the powers of joint legislature and executor.

They further claim that there has been a breach of the principle
of democracy,
in that the applicants are in a situation such
that, although sitting in the European Parliament follow free
democratic elections, they are precluded from financing from
the general budget of the Union because they are not recog-
nised as a political party at European level.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul

decision COM/R/A/1/1999

Selection
Committee not to place the applicant on the reserve list for
that selection, notified to him by letter of 21 January 2003
from the Head of Unit of personnel in the Commission's
Directorate-General
the
Chairman of the Selection Committee;

for Research, on behalf of

the

of

— Order the Commission to pay him damages, of an amount
to be assessed by the Court, to compensate for non-material
damage and damage to his career resulting from the incor-
rectness of the contested decision;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant in the present case is the same as in Cases T-
102/01 (1) and T-156/03 (2) Orlando Perez-Diaz v Commission.

The pleas in law and main arguments are those invoked in
Case T-156/03, cited above.

(1) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September

2002 ([2002] ECR-SC I-A-165; II-871).

(2) OJ C 171, of 19.7.03, p. 37.

Action brought on 9 February 2004 by Mohammad Reza
Fardoom and Marie José Reinard against Commission of
the European Communities

(Case T-43/04)

(2004/C 94/135)

(Language of the case: French)

Action brought on 2 February 2004 by Orlando Perez-
Diaz against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities

(Case T-41/04)

(2004/C 94/134)

(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 2 February 2004 by Orlando Perez-
Diaz, residing in Brussels, represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 February 2004 by Mohammad
Reza Fardoom and Marie José Reinard, residing at Luxembourg,
represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti,
lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul the evaluation exercise 2001/2002 in relation to the

applicants;

— Alternatively, annul

the applicants' career development

reports (REC/CDR) for the period 1.7.2001-31.12.2002;

— Decide as to costs, expenses and fees and order

the

Commission of the European Communities to pay them.

C 94/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.4.2004

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

The applicants, officials of the Commission, contest the evalua-
tion exercise 2001-2002 and, alternatively, their career devel-
opment reports for the period 1.7.2001-31.12.2002.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants rely on infringement of Article 26 of the Staff
Regulations. They assert that the creation of computer forms
completed directly on screen and stored in the new computer
system for personnel management is equivalent to the creation
of parallel files.

the

applicants

Furthermore,
rely upon infringement of
Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. The fixing of a mean target
and the procedure of communicating vessels constrains apprai-
sers and, therefore, restrains their freedom of judgment in the
appraisal of officials' services.

In support of their action, the applicants also plead:

— infringement of the Commission's decision relating to the
General Provisions for Implementation of Article 43 of the
Staff Regulations;

— infringement of the Appraisal Guide and of the special

guide for the staff evaluation exercise (2001-2002);

— infringement of the principle of non-discrimination;

— infringement of the principle of preventing arbitrary proce-
dures, of the duty to state reasons, and abuse of powers;

— infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate
expectations and of the rule patere legem quam ipse fecisti
(abide by your own rules);

— breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare and/ or

interests of officials.

Action brought on 3 February 2004 by Eugene Emile
the European
Marie Kimman against Commission of

Communities

(Case T-44/04)

(2004/C 94/136)

(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 3 February 2004 by Eugene Emile
Marie Kimman, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by
Nicolas Lhoëst, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated 20
December 2002 confirming the applicant's initial classifica-
tion in Grade B5;

— In so far as necessary, annul the decision of the appointing
authority of 1 October 2003 rejecting the applicant's
complaint;

The contested decision confirmed the applicant's classification
in Grade B5 on the date of his recruitment and, accordingly,
rejected a request for reclassification introduced by the appli-
cant
the rules on the criteria
applicable to appointment in grade and classification in step on
recruitment, adopted by the Commission following the judg-
ment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-17/95 (1).

following an amendment of

In support of his action, the applicant claims that the Commis-
sion should have applied its decision of 6 June 1973 for the
purposes of his recruitment and not the decision of 1983,
which had not yet been adopted at the time.

He also relies on failure to state reasons for the contested deci-
sion, a manifest error of assessment and alleged discrimination
between the applicant, whose application for reclassification
was rejected, and other officials who, with the same length of
professional experience as the applicant, were able to benefit
from reclassification.

(1) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities of 5 October 1995, published in OJ C 315,
25-11-95, p. 14.

Action brought on 11 February 2004 by Marie Tzirani
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-45/04)

(2004/C 94/137)

(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 11 February 2004 by Marie Tzirani,
residing in Brussels, represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Commission's decision of 11 February 2003 to
reject
the A2 post of
Director of the ‘Staff Regulations: policy, management and
advisory services’ Directorate;

the applicant's candidature for

— Order the defendant to pay the costs, pursuant to Article
the Court of First

the Rules of Procedure of

87(2) of
Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant in this case challenges the Commission's refusal
to accept her candidature for the A2 post of Director of the
‘Staff Regulations: policy, management and advisory services’
Directorate.