Case T-256/05: Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Fernanda Ehrhardt-Avancini against the European Parliament
Date: 2005-09-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action by staff, personnel administration, regulations for civil servants, sick leave

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/27

The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the
duty to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC since no
reasons are given as to why the measure is clearly beneficial to
the environment. In addition, the applicant complains that the
contested decision does not address the arguments regarding
the original decision raised in the proceedings pending before
the Court of First Instance.

2. award default interest;

3. order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims furthermore that the contested decision
refers to an original decision which is invalid because it
infringes essential procedural requirements.

The applicant, further submits that, in considering the measure
to be clearly beneficial to the environment and thus compatible
with the common market in accordance with Article 87(3)(c)
EC, the Commission's decision is based on an inadequate estab-
lishment of the facts.

Finally, the applicant complains that the contested decision
discriminates against the insulating material referred to by the
Commission as ‘traditional’, in particular mineral fibre insula-
tion material, and also insulating material from renewable raw
materials which do not possess the natureplus quality mark,
without any objective reason. According to the applicant, the
decision thereby infringes the principle of proportionality and
the principle of non-discrimination and is thus contrary to
fundamental principles of Community law.

At the time the relevant facts arose, the applicant was an offi-
cial at the European Parliament. The European Parliament sent
a letter on 21 July 2004 informing her that 207 hours and 30
minutes would be deducted from her annual leave on account
of her absence on medical grounds from 28 May to 11 July
2004. The Parliament's decision was made as a result of the
findings of an examination of the applicant by an independent
doctor, in accordance with Article 59 of the Staff Regulations,
which indicated that the applicant was fit to return to her
duties. A subsequent claim by the applicant seeking the restitu-
tion of the financial and/or other value of the hours deducted
was also rejected by the Parliament.

In support of her application, the applicant claims the infringe-
ment of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations and the internal
rules of the Parliament on the ground that she was subjected to
an examination by an independent doctor without a prior
medical examination by the institution's medical officer. She
also claims the infringement of the duty to give a statement of
reasons, the rights of the defence and the principle ‘patere quam
ipse legem fecisti’.

Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Fernanda Ehrhardt-
Avancini against the European Parliament

Action brought on 30 June 2005 by Eric Voigt against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-256/05)

(2005/C 229/58)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-258/05)

(2005/C 229/59)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1
July 2005 by Fernanda Ehrhardt-Avancini, residing in Luxem-
bourg, represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and
Chiara Ronzi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the Parliament's decision rejecting the claim for resti-
tution of the financial and/or other value of 207 hours 30
minutes which were deducted from her annual leave and
then from her salary/pension;

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 June 2005 by Eric Voigt,
residing in Orange (France), represented by Bernard Autric,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. order the European Commission to accept his claim of
11.07.2002 for recognition of his illness as an occupational
disease;

2. order the Commission to pay interest from 28.05.2004;