Case T-259/04: Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Anne Koistinen against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-10-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), allowances and expenses, regulations for civil servants, rights of civil servants

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/29

Action brought on 16 June 2004 by Spyridon de Athanas-
sios Pappas against the Committee of the Regions

Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Anne Koistinen
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-254/04)

(2004/C 262/56)

(Case T-259/04)

(2004/C 262/57)

(Language of the case: French)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Committee of the Regions was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 16 June 2004 by Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas, residing
in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by Xanthi Gousta, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 June 2004 by Anne Koistinen,
residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

— annul

the decision of

the
Committee of the Regions of 9 March 2004 in response to
his complaint of 23 December 2003;

the appointing authority of

— annul the decision of 8 October 2003 of the Bureau of the
Committee of the Regions annulling recruitment procedure
2000/C 28 A/01;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission not to grant her the
expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4(1)(a) of
Annex VII of the Staff Regulations and to establish her
place of origin as Brussels;

— order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant applied for the post of Secretary General of the
Committee of the Regions and subsequently contested before
the Court of First Instance (Case T-73/01) (1) the decision of the
Committee to reject his application and appoint another candi-
date to that post. By judgment of 18 September 2003, (2) the
Court of First Instance upheld his application. In the wake of
that judgment, the Committee of the Regions, by decision of 8
October 2003, annulled the recruitment procedure at issue and
opened a fresh recruitment procedure for the same post.

The applicant entered the service of the Commission on 16
January 2002, as a member of the auxiliary staff. On 1 July
2003 she was appointed as a probationary official. Before
entering the service of the Commission, she had worked for a
private firm in Brussels from 15 January 1996 to 16 August
1998, for the same firm in Helsinki from 17 August 1998 to 2
September 1998 and from 7 September 1998 to 15 January
2002 in Brussels for ‘Finpro’, a Finnish non profit-making orga-
nisation.

By this action, the applicant contests the latter decision and the
decision rejecting the complaint he lodged about it. He submits
that under Article 233 EC the defendant should have reopened
the first recruitment procedure, by reconstructing his applica-
tion file fully and accurately and then proceeding to consult the
ad hoc selection committee. According to the applicant, it was
only after those steps had been taken that the defendant could
validly annul the first recruitment procedure.

(1) OJ C 161, 2.6.2001, p. 23.
(2) OJ C 289, 29.11.2003, p. 20.

By this action the applicant contests the decision of
the
Commission not to grant her the expatriation allowance. She
pleads a breach of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff
Regulations, pointing out that she did not live in Brussels or
carry out her principal professional activity there for the whole
of the reference period laid down by that provision, as she
lived and worked in Helsinki
from 17 August 1998 to 2
September 1998. In the alternative, she submits that ‘Finpro’
was part of the Finnish Permanent Representation to the Euro-
pean Union and that, therefore, the period during which she
worked there should not be taken into account as that consti-
tuted work done for another State.