Case T-155/05: Action brought on 18 April 2005 by Robert Steinmetz against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-06-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), allowances and expenses, rights of civil servants

C 155/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.6.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 18 April 2005 by Robert Steinmetz
against the Commission of the European Communities

1. annul the express decision of 18 January 2005, No 05/399,

rejecting her complaint;

2.

in so far as is necessary, annul the implied decision rejecting
the applicant's request for assistance dated 28 November
2003 and annul the implied decision rejecting the appli-
cant's request for assistance dated 23 December 2003;

3. find that the applicant was subjected to, and experienced,

psychological harassment in her job;

4. order

the defendant

to pay the applicant

the sum of
EUR 100 000 (one hundred thousand euro) in compensa-
tion for non-material damage, subject to any increases or
assessments in connection with the psychological harass-
ment, bearing in mind that the applicant's future is totally
uncertain and that her health has been badly affected;

(Case T-155/05)

(2005/C 155/51)

(Language of the case: French)

5. reserve all legal obligations, including the right to apply for
discovery of the witness examinations as described in the
IDOC's findings of 7 January 2005;

6. order the defendant to pay the costs.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 April 2005 by Robert Steinmetz,
represented by Joëlle Choucroun,
residing in Luxembourg,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission, lodged with her
superiors two requests for assistance, dated 28 November 2003
and 23 December 2003, in which she claimed to be the victim
of psychological harassment within her organisational unit. By
her action, she contests the rejection of her requests and of the
complaint which she lodged subsequently.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the Commission's decision dated 10 January 2005 in
reply to the applicant's complaints R/376/04 of 29 April
2004 and R/857/04 of 20 August 2004;

2. order the Commission to repay EUR 26.19 to the applicant;

In support of her action, the applicant maintains that, in the
light of the number of tasks which were assigned to her by her
superior and of the number of e-mails which he sent to her, it
is indisputable that she experienced genuine psychological
harassment. The contested decisions therefore infringe Article
12 of the Staff Regulations.

3. award the applicant token compensation of one euro for the
non-material damage suffered as a result of the contested
decision;

4. order

the Commission to pay the entire costs of

the

proceedings.

in her
The rejection of her requests for assistance infringes,
view, both Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and Mr Kinnock's
proposal of 15 October 2003 concerning policy on psycholo-
gical harassment. The applicant also alleges failure to state
reasons for the decision of 18 January 2005, breach of the
principle of the prohibition of arbitrary conduct, misuse of
powers, breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
expectations and of the rule patere legem quam ipse fecisti and
breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case objects to the rejection by the
Appointing Authority of his claim for settlement of mission
expenses and for repayment of EUR 26.19 unduly deducted
from his salary of March 2005. In that context, he also objects
to the refusal to grant his request for assistance, submitted
under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/27

It is recalled in that regard that, on 29 July 2003, the applicant
participated in Brussels in the proceedings of a competition
selection board of which he was chairman. He travelled in a
hire vehicle placed at his disposal by the Commission. On his
return to Luxembourg, he filled up with fuel and it is specifi-
cally an alleged error on the sales receipt, in respect of the time
printed on that receipt, which has given rise to the present
action.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:

— infringement of Articles 24, 62, 64 and 71 of the Staff
Regulations, of Article 11 of Annex VII to the Staff Regula-
the ‘Guide to missions’
tions and of
(Commission Decision of 23 March 2003) and of
the
‘Guide à destination des liquidateurs des missions’ (Guide
for officials reponsible for calculating and settling mission
expenses) of March 2003;

the provisions of

— breach of

the principle of

the protection of

legitimate

expectations;

— the existence in this case of manifest errors of assessment.

Action brought on 18 April 2005 by Dimitra Lantzoni
against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

(Case T-156/05)

(2005/C 155/52)

(Language of the case: French)

Pleas in law and main arguments

In November 2003, the applicant, an official of the defendant,
was informed that she had not been awarded any promotion
points. She challenged that decision on the ground that her
periodic report was not yet final when the promotion points
were awarded. Following that challenge and the improvement
of her report by the appeal assessor, the applicant's immediate
superior reviewed her case in the light of her final report but
again decided not to award her any promotion points for
2002. By her action, the applicant contests both the latter deci-
sion and the decision not to promote her under the 2003
procedure.

In support of her action, the applicant alleges manifest error of
assessment on the basis of an alleged lack of consistency
between the decision not to award her any promotion points
and the assessments and findings contained in her periodic
report. She also claims that the defendant compared her merits
not with those of all the officials of the institution who were
eligible for the same promotion, but only with those of the
other officials in her unit, in contravention both of Article 45
of the Staff Regulations and of point 8 of the Annex to the
Decision of the Court of Justice relating to promotions. In addi-
tion, she alleges irregularities in the opinion of the Promotion
Committee, namely failure to observe the audi alteram partem
rule and the rights of the defence.

As regards the challenging of the decision not to promote her,
the applicant maintains that her periodic report does not in
any way justify blocking her career, particularly since the criti-
cisms made of her in her periodic reports are vague and unsub-
stantiated.

An action against the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 April 2005 by Dimitra Lantzoni,
residing in Luxembourg,
represented by Michèle Bouché,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the decision of the Complaints Committee of 8 March
2005 in so far as it rejects the applicant's two complaints of
22 September 2004 directed respectively against the distri-
bution of promotion points to which she was subject for
2002 and against her non-promotion under
the 2003
promotion procedure;

2. order the defendant to pay the costs.

Action brought on 25 April 2005 by Hoechst AG against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-161/05)

(2005/C 155/53)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 April 2005 by Hoechst AG,
Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann
and U. Itzen, lawyers.