Case T-343/04: Action brought on 6 August 2004 by Vassilios Tsarnavas against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-10-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, indemnification, psychological harassment, report, staff assessment

C 262/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.10.2004

Second, the applicant complains that the contested decision
disregarded the requirements of the principle of sincere coop-
eration which applies to the European Commission in its rela-
tions with national institutions, as established under Article 10
EC and set out in Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, first, by failing
to inform the national court in full of the background to the
case,
the French competition
authority, as provided in Article 11(6) of that regulation, even
though the matter had been brought before it in January 2004.

then, by failing to consult

Third and finally, the applicant alleges an infringement of the
principle of proportionality both in light of the apparent objec-
the inspection and the background to it and the
tive of
complete lack of evidence of
the existence of a risk that
evidence will be concealed or destroyed.

(1) OJ 2003 L 1, of 4.1.2003, p. 1.

Action brought on 9 August 2004 by Herta Adam against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-342/04)

(2004/C 262/99)

(Language of the case: French)

Action brought on 6 August 2004 by Vassilios Tsarnavas
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-343/04)

(2004/C 262/100)

(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 August 2004 by Vassilios Tsar-
navas, resident in Volos (Greece), represented by N. Lhoëst,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the appeal assessor adopted on 4
August 2003, approving, without amendment, the appli-
cant's final staff report for the period from 1 July 1997 to
30 June 1999;

— annul

the Commission's implied decision rejecting the
complaint submitted by the applicant under Article 90(2)
of the Staff Regulations on 30 December 2003;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant compensation

of EUR 10 000 in respect of non-material damage;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of this action.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 August 2004 by Herta Adam,
residing at Brussels, represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N.
Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant challenges the appeal assessor's decision, which
approves, without amendment, his staff report for the period
1997–1999. He also claims compensation for the non-material
damage he has suffered.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant puts forward the following pleas in support of
his application for annulment:

— annul the Commission's decision refusing the applicant the
the expatriation allowance provided for by

benefit of
Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her application, the applicant alleges infringement
of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations in that the
period during which she worked in the office of the representa-
tion of a German Land in Brussels is not considered by the
Commission as employment arising from services carried out
for another State. The applicant also alleges infringement of the
principle of equal treatment.

— procedural irregularities;

— manifest error of assessment;

— failure to state reasons;

— misuse of powers and harassment;

As regards his claim for compensation, the applicant submits
that the staff report was drawn up four years late, which is
quite unacceptable. Furthermore, the applicant was subjected to
harassment. For all
is
claiming compensation which he assesses, on the basis of
equity, at EUR 10 000.

the damage suffered,

the applicant