Case T-406/05: Action brought on  9 November 2005  — Alessandro Cavallaro v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-01-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, allowances and expenses, regulations for civil servants

C 10/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.1.2006

Finally, the applicant considers that the Commission has not
established that disclosure would seriously undermine its future
decision-making process, since the report of which disclosure
was requested does not relate to the way decisions will be
taken in future but to the way in which they were wrongly
taken in the past, transparency could not be equated to undue
external pressure and the disclosure requested would have no
impact on the stability of the Community legal order.

The applicant finally argues that there is an overriding public
interest in the disclosure of the requested documents.

(1) OJ L 145, 31/05/2001, p. 43

Action brought on 9 November 2005 — Alessandro Caval-
laro v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-406/05)

(2006/C 10/58)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Cavallaro (Rome, Italy) (represented by:
Carlo Forte, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision ADMIN. B.2.-ABF/adm-D(05)18560 of the

appointing authority (AIPN) of 10 August 2005;

— in the alternative, order time to start running again for the
purposes of bringing an action for annulment of decisions
ADMIN-B-3 No 10577 of 27 February 2002 and No
53089 of 14 November 2002;

— in the further alternative, declare admissible the plea of
unlawfulness seeking a declaration that decisions ADMIN-B-
3 No 10577 of 27 February 2002 and No 53089 of 14
November 2002 are inapplicable, allowing the applicant

the right to payment of the sums relating to the expatria-
tion allowance from 1 December 2001 and for the entire
period of service with the European Commission in Brus-
sels, including arrears and interest;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case appeals against the decision
of the appointing authority of 10 August 2005, in which he
was refused the expatriation allowance provided for in Article
4 of Annex VII
the European
Communities, and requests payment of the sums relating to
such allowance to be allowed from 1 March 2005 and for the
entire period of service with the Commission delegation in
Rome.

to the Staff Regulations of

It must be noted in that respect that back in 2002, immediately
after being employed by the Commission,
that authority
refused the expatriation allowance of 16 % on the assumption
that during the entire reference period for the calculation of the
five years referred to in the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the applicant had exercised
his professional activities in Brussels.

The applicant was subsequently transferred to the office of the
Commission delegation in Rome, and again asked for the
benefit of that allowance. The present action is brought against
the adverse decision in respect of that new request.

In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:

— misapplication of Article 4(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations;

— inconsistency of the statement of reasons and error in fact
concerning the documentation supplied in respect of the
1990-1995 period. On that point, the applicant reiterates
that he lived outside Italy from 1990 to 1995, and that he
did not study in Italy between 1992 and 1995. In any
event, the Commission's statements in the contested deci-
sion contradict the statements set out in the decisions of
2002; and

— inconsistency of the statement of reasons concerning the
presumption that from July 1990 to July 1995 the appli-
cant lived in Italy. In that respect it is asserted that the mere
declaration of the applicant, made at a time in which he
was working as an auxiliary agent, that his place of recruit-
in Italy, did not
ment was to be determined as Ariccia,
suffice to demonstrate his intention to remain living in that
place uninterruptedly, developing normal social relations
there.