Case T-205/05: Action brought on 17 May 2005 by European Dynamics SA against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-08-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU programme, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), information technology, termination of a contract

C 193/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.8.2005

The applicant also claims that Paragraph IX of the competition
notice, as well as Paragraph 2 of the instructions to candidates
are contrary to Articles 2, 4 and 5 of Annex III to the Staff
Regulations, because they prescribe a mandatory electronic
entry procedure which was such as to exclude her candidature.

ware used is available in several languages, infringes the prin-
ciple of non-discrimination, because the complete mastery of
the computer necessitates a knowledge, no less complete, of
the English language, superior to the level which can reason-
ably be expected of a European official who is not anglophone
by birth.

Action brought on 23 May 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef and
Others against Commission of the European Communities

The applicants also rely on alleged infringements of the duty to
have regard for the welfare of officials, of the prohibition of
arbitrary procedures and of the duty to state reasons, as well as
an alleged misuse of powers.

(Case T-204/05)

(2005/C 193/57)

(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 23 May 2005 by Giorgio Lebedef,
residing in Luxembourg, Armand Imbert, residing in Brussels,
Jean-Marie Rousseau, residing in Brussels, and Maria Rosario
represented by G.
residing in Brussels,
Domenech Cobo,
BounØou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

(cid:1) annul the express rejection, of 12 July 2004, of application
D/393/04 by which the applicants requested that the oper-
ating system and all the software used to operate their
personal computers be made available, by the competent
service, in their mother tongue, or alternatively, in another
official language of the European Union of their choice;

(cid:1) order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, all officials of the Commission, applied to their
superiors for the operating system and all the software used to
operate their personal computers to be made available in their
mother tongue or, alternatively, in another official language of
the European Union of their choice. That application and their
complaints having been rejected, the applicants brought this
action. They claim that the practice of installing the entire
configuration of the computers in English, although the soft-

Action brought on 17 May 2005 by European Dynamics
SA against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-205/05)

(2005/C 193/58)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 May 2005 by European
Dynamics SA, established in Athens (Hellenic Republic), repre-
sented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1) annul the decision of the Commission communicated to the
applicant through a letter dated 3 March 2005, to issue a
recovery order for an amount of 59 485 euros against the
applicant related to the (cid:4)eEBO(cid:5) project, the decision of the
Commission communicated to the applicant
through a
letter dated 12 November 2004 by which the Commission
decided to reimburse an amount of labour not exceeding
85 971 euros, as well as the decision of the Commission
communicated to the applicant by letter dated 16 May
2003 to terminate the contract EDC-53007 eEBO/27873:
eContent exposure and business opportunities.

2) order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and other
costs and expenses incurred in connection with this applica-
tion.

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/35

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was awarded a contract by the Commission
relating to the project
(cid:4)e-Content Exposure and Business
Opportunities(cid:5) (eEBO). Some of the work for this contract was
subcontracted by the applicant, even though subcontracting
was not allowed. A technical verification was executed by the
Commission and clarifications were requested on certain issues
relating to the personnel used by the applicant. Following this
evaluation, the Commission adopted the decision contested in
the present case.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
Commission made an evident error of assessment in that it
failed to take into account that the eEBO-project was depen-
dent on another e-content project, namely PICK, and that the
contractor for the PICK project did not respect its obligations.
The applicant also claims that the Commission erred in termi-
nating the project as a whole.

that

submits

the applicant

Furthermore,
the Commission
infringed the principles of good administration and transpar-
ency and did not eliminate certain conflicts of
interest.
According to the applicant, the Commission failed to act when
the applicant
the
malfunctioning of
the project were the personnel relations
between specific Commission officials and the two experts to
which the applicant subcontracted part of the work.

indicated that, allegedly,

the source of

Action brought on 27 May 2005 by Jean-Marc Colombani
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-206/05)

(2005/C 193/59)

(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 27 May 2005 by Jean-Marc Colom-
bani, residing in Brussels, represented by StØphane Rodrigues
and Alice Jaume, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(cid:1) annul the decision of the Commission of 7 March 2005
and the resulting measures concerning the applicant’s remu-
neration;

(cid:1) take all necessary measures to safeguard the applicant’s
rights and interests, in particular as regards the minimum
subsistence amount which he should be granted in terms of
remuneration;

(cid:1) order

the defendant

to pay damages

in the sum of

EUR 10 002;

(cid:1) order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission, took leave on
personal grounds until 31 August 2004. Having made a
request to return to work at the end of his leave, he was rein-
stated in DG RELEX by decision of 28 September 2004.
it was not specified to which precise position he
However,
would be assigned, that decision providing that he would be
informed of that at a later stage.

that he had been absent without

By note of 7 March 2005, the administration informed the
applicant
leave since 5
October 2004 and that the appropriate measures would be
taken against him. He did not receive his salary for April and
his pay slip stated that he owed the Commission the amount
he had received by way of salary from October 2004.

By his action, the applicant contests the note of 7 March 2005
and the resulting measures. He pleads infringement of
the
rights of the defence, claiming that he was not able to defend
his interests before the contested decisions were adopted. He
also pleads infringement of the obligation to state reasons and
that manifest errors of assessment were made. More particu-
larly, he maintains that that he was never informed that he had
been assigned to the unit RELEX/C.1. He further contests the
claim that he did not respond to an offer of employment.

The applicant then pleads infringement of Article 40 of the
Staff Regulations, which, in his view, allows him to turn down
the first offer of employment. He also pleads infringement of
Article 60 of the Staff Regulations, on the ground that his
alleged absence was not duly established and was not initially
deducted from his annual leave. The applicant further claims
that Annexes VIII and IX to the Staff Regulations ensuring that
he is paid the minimum subsistence amount were infringed.
the principles of sound
Finally, he pleads infringement of
administration and the duty to have regard to the interests of
officials.

In addition to the annulment of the contested measures, the
applicant seeks compensation for the material and non-material
damages which he allegedly suffered.