Case T-289/05: Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Arcangelo Milella and Another against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-09-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), administration of the Institutions, allocation of seats, civil servants’ union, workers' representation

C 229/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.9.2005

The applicant states that he seeks equal treatment compared to
officials recruited between June 2003 and end of April 2004.
In support of his application, the applicant invokes the illegality
of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the revised Staff Regulations.
According to the applicant, that article violates the principle of
equal treatment and of non discrimination, Article 31 of the
revised Staff Regulations, Article 5 of the revised Staff Regula-
tions together with the principle of equal treatment and non
discrimination, the principle of equivalence of position and
grades, Article 7 (1) of the Staff Regulations and Annex IA to
the Staff Regulations, as well as, finally, the principle of legal
certainty, the principle of non retroactivity and the applicant's
acquired rights and his legitimate expectation. The applicant
furthermore submits that Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No
723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations
of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of
Employment of other servants of the European Communities (1)
infringes Article 10 of the Staff Regulations.

The applicant also invokes a violation of the principle of good
administration, the principle of due care, the principle of trans-
parency, the principle of good faith and the principle of equal
treatment and non discrimination.

(1) OJ L 124, p. 1

Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Arcangelo Milella and
Another against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities

(Case T-289/05)

(2005/C 229/76)

(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 26 July 2005 by Arcangelo Milella,
resident in Niederanven (Luxembourg), and Delfina Campanella,
resident
in Luxembourg, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas,
lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the decision of 18 April 2005 of the Director-
General for Personnel and Administration of the Commis-
sion in so far as it specifies that the d'Hondt rule is a
method for allocating seats of representatives of the Local

Staff Committee for Luxembourg (LCSL) on the Central
Staff Committee (CSC) in accordance with the proportion-
ality principle, and requests the LCSL to bear that rule in
mind for the purpose of adopting a new decision as regards
the appointment of its members to the CSC;

— establish the illegality of the decisions of 26 April and 10
May 2005 of the Local Staff Committee for Luxembourg
allocating its representatives to the Central Staff Committee
in so far as they allocate five seats to list No 2 and two
seats to list No 1 in accordance with the d'Hondt method,
and not four seats to list No 2 and three seats to list No 1
in accordance with the largest remainder method;

— annul the decision of 11 May 2005 of the Director-General
for Personnel and Administration confirming that the new
appointments of
its representatives to the Central Staff
Committee made by the Local Staff Committee for Luxem-
bourg on 26 April and 10 May 2005 had been properly
effected;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The dispute concerns the appointment of representatives of the
Local Staff Committee of
the Commission in Luxembourg
(LCSL) to the Central Staff Committee of the Commission (CSC)
following the elections of 24 November 2004. By letter of 18
April 2005, the Director-General of the DG ADMIN of the
Commission pointed out to the chairpersons of the LCSL and
CSC that he considered the ‘d'Hondt rule’, which is a mathema-
tical method chosen to divide the seats within the CSC
amongst the lists put forward for the elections, to be in accord-
ance with the proportionality principle. However, by that same
letter, the Director annulled, on separate grounds, the appoint-
ments of the representatives to the CSC. Following that letter,
the LCSL, on 26 April 2005, appointed new representatives, in
accordance with the d'Hondt method.

By letter of 11 May 2005, the Director-General of the DG
ADMIN confirmed that he considered those appointments to
be in order.

The applicants, officials of the European Commission posted in
Luxembourg, contend that those decisions should be annulled.
They claim that there has been an infringement of the final
paragraph of Article 14 of the Regulations of 27 April 1988
on the composition and functioning of the Staff Committee
adopted by the Commission, and of the rule that the allocation
of seats within the CSC should be in proportion to the alloca-
tion of seats on the LCSL and of the principle that the CSC be
representative. The applicants allege that a different method of
seat allocation, namely the largest remainder method, should
have been adopted and would have resulted in a more repre-
sentative allocation.

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/37

The applicants also contend that the LCSL misused its powers.
They submit that the majority of the LCSL sought artificially to
increase its representation to the detriment of list No 1, and
the Appointing Authority erred in law and committed a mani-
fest error of assessment in approving the use of the d'Hondt
method.

the Appointing Authority
The applicants also claim that
infringed the principle of equal
in so far as it
treatment
departed from its previous practice, under which it considered
the largest remainder method to be the only method capable of
guaranteeing proportionality.

Finally, the applicants allege that the Appointing Authority
infringed the third paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the
Staff Regulations and Article 16(1) and (2) of the Regulations
of the LCSL on the ground that the Appointing Authority
forced the LCSL to choose the d'Hondt method or, at least,
allowed it to encroach upon the competence of the General
Staff Assembly, which is the only body competent to decide
upon the applicable method.

Action brought on 25 July 2005 by Mohammad Reza
Fardoom and Michael Ashbrook against the Commission
of the European Communities

(Case T-291/05)

(2005/C 229/77)

(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 25 July 2005 by Mohammed Reza
Fardoom,
and
in Roodt-sur-Syre
Michael Ashbrook, resident in Strassen (Luxembourg), repre-
sented by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

(Luxembourg),

resident

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the decisions of the Head of Unit

for ‘Social
Dialogue’, adopted on 4 November 2004 and refusing the
applicants travel orders, applied for on 9 September 2004,
in order to take part in the meeting of 13 September 2004
with a member of the Commission;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants had been invited, as representatives of a trade
union organisation, to a meeting held on 13 September 2004
with a member of the Commission. In order to take part in
that meeting, the applicants had, beforehand, applied for travel
orders. Those applications were not approved by their
immediate superior until 41 days later. The authorising officer
rejected those applications by reason of that delay.

The applicants claim that the latter decision should be annulled.
In support of their action, they contend that there has been an
infringement of Article 24a of the Staff Regulations, of the
freedom to belong to a trade union, of the principles of equal
treatment and non-discrimination, and that the process was
they
arbitrary.
lodged their requests within the appropriate time-limit and that
they should not be held responsible for the fact that they were
approved too late. The applicants also contend that
the
missions were requested without any expenses and that,
accordingly, it was not necessary subsequently to involve the
budget of the institution.

the applicants submit

In that context,

that

The applicants also allege that there has been an infringement
of the principle that reasons must be given and of the duty of
care owed by the Commission.

Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Maria Johansen against
the Court of Auditors of the European Communities

(Case T-292/05)

(2005/C 229/78)

(Language of the case: French)

the Court of Auditors of

An action against
the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 26 July 2005 by Maria
Johansen, resident in Luxembourg, represented by Stéphane
Rodrigues and Alice Jaume, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— primarily,

set

aside

the decision of

the Appointing
Authority of 21 April 2005 rejecting the applicant's
complaint, adopted together with the Appointment Author-
ity's appointment decision of 27 October 2004, in so far as
it
in accordance with Article 12(3) of
Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, and her step in accord-
ance with the current Article 32 of the Staff Regulations;

fixes her grade,