Case T-22/05: Action brought on 11 January 2005 by Antonello Violetti and Others against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-04-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU control, European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, European official, appeal to the Court (EU), fraud against the EU, medical data, occupational accident insurance

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/37

Action brought on 11 January 2005 by Antonello Violetti
and Others against Commission of the European Commu-
nities

(Case T-22/05)

(2005/C 82/67)

(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 January 2005 by Antonello
Violetti, residing in Cittiglio (Italy), and 12 other officials, repre-
sented by E. Boigelot, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

1. order the production of all the files concerning the appli-
cants and sealed by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF);

2. order the production of the report which concludes the

internal investigation into the applicants;

3. annul the investigation into the applicants;

4. annul the Note from OLAF containing the notification of
the investigation and the information of the Italian judicial
authorities;

5. annul the report of the investigation sent to the Italian judi-

cial authorities;

6. annul all measures which may be taken subsequently to the
bringing of this action following and/or relating to those
decisions;

7. order the Commission to pay damages and interest, assessed
on an equitable basis at EUR 30 000 for each applicant,
subject to increase and/or decrease in the course of the
proceedings;

8.

in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

OLAF notified the applicants that an internal investigation had
been opened concerning the application of the accident insur-
ance
the officials
concerned applied for access to their medical files. That access
was refused them.

that notification,

Following

scheme.

The plea in law alleges infringement of Article 73 of the Staff
Regulations, Article 28 of the Conditions of employment of
other servants, infringement of the Rules on the insurance of
officials of the European Communities against the risk of acci-
dent and of occupational disease, disregard of the general prin-

ciples of law, such as the principle of sound administration and
the principle of equal treatment, and disregard of the duty to
have regard for the welfare of officials and of the principles
which require OLAF and the Commission to adopt decisions
only on the basis of lawful grounds, that is to say grounds
which are relevant and not vitiated by a manifest error of
assessment.

The applicants submit also that Regulation 1073/1999 (1) and
Commission Decision 1999/396/EC of 2 June 1999 (2) are
illegal and, as a result, plead their illegality within the meaning
of Article 241 of the EC Treaty.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted
by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ 1999 L 136, p. 1).
(2) Commission Decision 1999/396/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 2 June 1999
concerning the terms and conditions for internal investigations in
relation to the prevention of
fraud, corruption and any illegal
activity detrimental to the Communities' interests (OJ 1999 L 149,
p. 57).

Action brought on 10 January 2005 by Eric Gippini Four-
nier against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-23/05)

(2005/C 82/68)

(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 10 January 2005 by Eric Gippini
Fournier, residing in Brussels, represented by A. Theissen,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the decisions to award zero ‘DG priority points’ to the
applicant in the 2003 promotion procedure; to reject his
appeal to the Promotions Committee seeking the award to
the applicant of ‘DG priority points’ (or of ‘appeal’ points or
of priority points by whatever description); to refuse to
award priority points for work in the interest of the institu-
tion under Article 9 of the General Provisions implementing
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;