Case T-291/05: Action brought on 25 July 2005 by Mohammad Reza Fardoom and Michael Ashbrook against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-09-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, administration of the Institutions, civil servants’ union, trade union freedom, trade union rights

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,