Case T-258/05: Action brought on 30 June 2005 by Eric Voigt against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-09-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, occupational disease, personnel administration

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;

C 229/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.9.2005

3. order the European Commission to answer his questions of
20.01.2004 sent to the Office of Investigation and Disci-
pline (IDOC);

3.

in the alternative, declare that the appointment must be
made at grade A*8;

4. order the Commission to give the reason for its decision to
withdraw the decision initiating disciplinary proceedings
against an official (Mr C);

4.

in the alternative, declare that the appointment must be
made at grade A*7;

5. order the payment of damages and interest in the amount

of EUR 1 000 000;

5. order the Commission to place the applicant in the financial
position he would be in if he had been correctly classified,
i.e. pay the difference;

6. order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the recognition of his psychological and
emotional problems as an occupational disease within the
meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations. He claims
infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, together
with the infringement of rights of the defence, the principle of
the protection of
transparency and
legitimate expectations,
legal certainty. He also claims a procedural error.

Action brought on 14 July 2005 by Peter Strobl against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-260/05)

(2005/C 229/60)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 July 2005 by Peter Strobl,
residing in Greifenberg-Beuern (Germany), represented by H.-J.
Rüber, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

6. order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant contests his appointment
at grade A*6 upon recruitment by the defendant in October
2004.

The applicant bases his claim on three grounds. Firstly, he
submits that there is infringement of the principle of legitimate
expectation. In the applicant's view, the notice itself, the proce-
dure followed on similar notices and the rules of the old Staff
Regulations in force at the time of the notice raised in the
applicant the well-founded expectation that, were he to be
recruited, it would be at grade A7/A6 or their equivalent under
the new Staff Regulations, namely grades A*8 or A*10 in
accordance with Article 12 of Annex XIII. His recruitment at
grade A*6 on the basis of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the new
Staff Regulations was unlawful. The consequence to the appli-
cant of the application of the new Staff Regulations by the
Appointing Authority is an infringement of the general require-
ment of
fails to satisfy the requirement of
certainty and does not comply with the principle that measures
should not be retroactive.

transparency,

As the second ground of his complaint, the applicant submits
that there is discrimination against him because of his age. His
classification at grade A*6 ought to have been made without
any reference to the age of the applicant.

Finally, the applicant submits that application of Article 12 of
Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations leads to inequality of
treatment of the applicant in comparison with colleagues from
other selection competitions and in other job placements who
are placed in a higher grade.

1. annul

the decision of

the
Commission of 7 October 2004 with regard to the inclusion
of the applicant in grade A*6;

the Appointing Authority of

2. declare that the appointment must be made at grade A*10;