Case C-268/05 P: Appeal brought on 27 June 2005 by Giorgio Lebedef against the judgment delivered on 12 April 2005 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-191/02 between Giorgio Lebedef and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-10-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, European official, General Court (EU), action by staff, appeal, regulations for civil servants, union representative

1.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/5

Appeal brought on 27 June 2005 by Giorgio Lebedef
against the judgment delivered on 12 April 2005 by the
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities in Case T-191/02 between Giorgio
Lebedef and the Commission of the European Commu-
nities

of the above-mentioned points, and annulment of Mr E. Hals-
kov's decision of 6 December 2001 refusing to grant the appli-
cant leave to attend, on a mission basis, the meeting of 7
December 2001 on the ‘comprehensive package of proposed
amendments to the Staff Regulations’.

(Case C-268/05 P)

(2005/C 243/07)

(Language of the case: French)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 April 2005 by
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities in Case T-191/02 between Giorgio Lebedef
the European Communities was
and the Commission of
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 27 June 2005 by Giorgio Lebedef, represented by G.
Bouneou and F. Frabetti, lawyers.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Set aside the judgment delivered on 12 April 2005 by the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
T-191/02 between Giorgio Lebedef, an official of the Commis-
sion of the European Communities, residing in Senningerberg
(Luxembourg), represented by G. Bouneou and F. Frabetti,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, appellant,
against Commission of the European Communities, represented
by J. Currall, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, respondent — application for annulment of the
Commission's decision of 5 December 2001, by which it repu-
diated the Framework Agreement of 20 September 1974,
adopted again the operational rules concerning the levels,
process and procedure of consultation agreed between the
Commission and the majority of trade union and professional
organisations on 19 January 2000, confirmed the Agreement
of 4 April 2001 on the resources to be made available to the
staff representatives, ratified the provisions on strikes laid down
in Annex I to the Framework Agreement of 20 September
1974, requested the Vice-President of the Commission, Mr N.
Kinnock, to negotiate with the trade union and professional
organisations and to propose for adoption by the Commission,
before the end of March 2002, a new Framework Agreement
and to include in the series of amendments to the Staff Regula-
tions, on which the trade union and staff organisations were to
be consulted, an amendment providing for the opportunity to
adopt electoral rules by way of a vote by the staff of the institu-
tion, and, if necessary, annulment of Mr Kinnock's letter of 22
November 2001 addressed to the President of each trade union
to notify them of his decision to ask the Commission to
repudiate, on 5 December 2001, the above-mentioned Frame-
work Agreement of 20 September 1974, and to adopt several

Please in law and main arguments:

In support of his action to have the judgment under appeal
contested set aside, the appellant contests part 4, paragraphs
96 to 103, of the judgment. More specifically, the admissibility
‘… the application for annulment of the decision of 5
of
December 2001 because it adopts operational rules and in so
far as it denies rights guaranteed to the appellant under the
Agreement of 4 April 2001’.

The operational rules,
in so far as they exclude from the
process of consultation the union represented thererin by the
appellant, affect his situation by denying him individual rights
conferred on him by his status as union representative in that
process (see, to that effect, Joined Cases 193/87 and 194/87
Maurissen and Union Syndicale v Court of Auditors [1989] ECR
1045, and Case T-42/97 Lebedef v Commission [1998] ECR SC
I-A-371 et II-1071, paragraphs 18 to 21). Accordingly, the
operational rules adversely affect him and give him standing to
challenge them with a view to having them annulled.

This finding is not affected by the case-law as established in
Joined Cases T-97/92 and T-111/92 Rijnoudt and Hocken v
Commission [1994] ECRSC I-A-159 and II-511, paragraphs 82
and 86, and Joined Cases T-576/93 to T-582/93 Browet and
Others v Commission [1994] ECR SC I-A-191 and II-619, para-
graph 44. The situations in question in the cases giving rise to
those judgments are distinguishable from the present case
because, in this case, the appellant's rights derive directly from
the rules on resources and, although conferred in order to facil-
itate the appellant's union's participation in the consultation,
they fall within Staff Regulation proceedings because they
affect directly his own legal situation.

In the judgment under appeal, with regard to the admissibility
considered, the Court of First Instance accepted de facto that
A&D (the appellant's union) is not representative. The appellant
finding because the operational rules do not
contests that
examine objectively whether the trade unions and professional
organisations are representative and there is a manifest error in
the comparative assessment of that issue. Moreover, the princi-
ples of equal treatment and non-discrimination, with respect to
the rights of the defence, the obligation to state reasons, the
prohibition of arbitrary procedure and Article 24a of the Staff
Regulations were breached.