Case T-220/05: Action brought on 7 June 2005 by Kurt Jacobs against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-08-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), appointment of staff, assistant, competition (EU), regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

C 205/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.8.2005

— order the Commission of the European Communities to
pay an indemnity for the financial
loss suffered by the
applicant, equivalent to the amount of the salary owed
from the time the contested decision took effect until the
date of judgment to be delivered by the Court of First
Instance, namely EUR 12 300 per month lapsed;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to
pay the amount of EUR 1 000 000 by way of compensa-
tion for the non-pecuniary loss suffered;

— in the alternative,

if the Court of First Instance does not
uphold the applicant's principal claim, order the Commis-
sion of
the European Communities to pay an overall
amount equivalent to:

(i) the entire salary of the applicant owing to the age of

65 (official retirement age);

(ii) the appurtenant
pension fund;

contribution into the applicant's

(iii) EUR 1 000 000 by way of compensation for the non-

pecuniary loss;

— order the Commission to pay EUR 12 000 to cover the
expenses incurred by the applicant which are not included
in costs;

— order the Commission to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and principal arguments

The applicant was appointed to the posts of Commission
Accounting Officer and Budget Execution Director by decision
of 11 December 2001. On 22 May 2002 she was removed
from the post of Accounting Officer. She was suspended with
effect from 28 August 2002 and disciplinary proceedings were
commenced against her. A Disciplinary Board was established
in March 2004. Following the recommendations of that board,
the applicant was removed from her posts by the contested
decision.

By her first plea, the applicant claims that the proceedings
which led to her removal from here posts were null and void
impartiality and independence
because the conditions of
provided for in Article 8 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations
and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
were not met in the present case. She argues, first, that the
members of the Commission who were behind the accusations
made against her were also part of the appointing authority
which took the decision to remover her from her posts and,
second, that the Disciplinary Board was composed entirely of
Commission officials, with exception of one person.

By her second plea, the applicant argues, first, that the decision
to remover her from her posts is a second disciplinary measure
taken against her, on the basis of the same facts which led to
her suspension and, accordingly, was imposed in breach of
Article 9 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations. She argues, as
part of the same plea, that the time-limits provided for in
Article 24 of the same annex have been exceeded. According
to the applicant, that tardiness is also a breach of Article 6 of
the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicant also
claims that the contested decision did not contain a statement
of reasons and that the sanction imposed on her was dispro-
portionate.

Action brought on 7 June 2005 by Kurt Jacobs against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-220/05)

(2005/C 205/48)

(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 7 June 2005 by Kurt
Jacobs,
residing in Bruges (Belgium),
represented by Lucas Vogel,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on
11 February 2005, notified on 14 February 2005 and
received on 27 February 2005, rejecting the complaint
brought by the applicant on 16 November 2004, by which
he sought annulment of three decisions adopted on 16
August 2004, 24 August 2004 and 31 August 2004 insofar
as they determined his grade on recruitment as B*3, step 2,
and
salary of
fixed his
EUR 3 101,85;

remuneration at

basic

a

2.

in addition, to the extent necessary, annul the decisions
against which that complaint was brought, dated 16 August
2004, 24 August 2004 and 31 August 2004;

3. order the Commission to pay damages in the sum of

EUR 250 000.

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/27

Pleas in law and main arguments

European Communities on 10 June 2005 by Olivier Chassagne,
residing in Brussels, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues and
Yola Minatchy, lawyers.

The applicant was a candidate for external competition COM/
B/1/02 intended to constitute a reserve for future recruitment
for administrative assistants of grade B5 or B4. Having been
successful in that competition, he received an offer of a post
from Commission DG RELEX by electronic mail on 20 April
2004. On 21 April 2004 he accepted that offer. However, the
instrument of appointment was not drawn up until 31 August
2004 since the applicant first had to terminate the contract
between him and his previous employer. By application of the
new provisions of the Staff Regulations which came into force
on 1 May 2004, he was recruited at grade B*3, step 2, although
the former grade B5, stated in the notice of competition, corre-
sponds to the new grade B*5. His basic salary was, therefore,
significantly lower than it would have been under the former
system.

The applicant therefore seeks annulment of the contested deci-
sions relating to his appointment and the setting of his grade
and compensation for the loss which he alleges he has suffered.
Under his first plea, he alleges infringement of the principle of
legitimate expectations, of the duty of the administration to
have regard for the interests of officials and of the binding
provisions of the notice of competition. In that context, he also
submits that the decision appointing him was, in reality, taken
before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations by the
exchange of electronic mails on 20 and 21 April 2004.

Furthermore, by his second plea, the applicant alleges infringe-
ment of the principle of non-discrimination, on the ground
that he was appointed to a grade lower than that stated in the
notice of competition and to which other successful candidates
from the same competition were recruited.

Action brought on 10 June 2005 by Olivier Chassagne
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-224/05)

(2005/C 205/49)

(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

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare unlawful, and therefore inapplicable to the appli-
cant, Article 8 of Annex VII to the new Staff Regulations of
Officials of the European Communities;

— award the applicant EUR one (1) by way of compensation
for the non-pecuniary damage sustained and the sum of
EUR seven thousand three hundred and seventy two
(7 372) by way of compensation for the financial damage
sustained;

— order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission, is originally from
the island of La Réunion, a French overseas department. He
the present action following the rejection of a
brought
complaint which he had lodged against his payslip for August
2004, containing reimbursement of his annual
travelling
expenses.

In support of his action, the applicant claims that Article 8 of
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, relating to reimbursement
of officials' annual travelling expenses to their place of origin,
is unlawful. He contends that that provision is contrary to
Community law in that
treatment
connected with the place of origin of officials and also to discri-
mination contrary to Articles 12 EC and 299 EC as against offi-
cials originating from French overseas departments, and also as
regards nationality,
the fact of belonging to a language
minority, ethnic origin or race.

it gives rise to unequal

The applicant also claims that that provision infringes other
general principles of Community law, such as the obligation to
state reasons and the principles of proportionality, transparency
and sound administration, and also the principle of legitimate
expectations and legal certainty.