Case T-399/05: Action brought on  21 October 2005  — Wils v European Parliament
Date: 2006-01-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action by staff, pay, pension scheme, regulations for civil servants

C 10/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.1.2006

(b) the award, in the 2004 promotion exercise, of points
awarded on appeal for reasons other than a finding of
merit in that period, priority points for work in the
the institution and transitional priority
interest of
points;

(c) as regards the points in (b), the merit list of officials in
Grade A5 for promotion exercise 2004, published in
Administrative Notices No 114-2004 of 20 September
2004 and No 119-2004 of 27 September 2004, and
the list of officials promoted to Grade A4 under the
2004 promotion exercise, published in Administrative
Notice No 130-2004 of 30 November 2004; and the
decision not to enter the applicant on those lists;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant advances similar pleas to
those advanced in Case T-385/04 (1).

(1) OJ C 284, 20.11.2004, p. 27.

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant fair compensation
of EUR 35 000, together with interest for late payment at
the rate of 7 % from 2 August 2005;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a member of the defendant's staff since 2001,
resigned on 2 August 2005 in order to receive the pecuniary
benefits set out under Regulation No 1111/2005 for staff
In her
members who had resigned before 4 August 2005.
action, the applicant argues that the defendant rejected her
application for indemnities to which she was entitled, and for
the documents which she needed to receive social protection in
her country of residence, and claims annulment of that decision
of refusal and compensation for the damage allegedly suffered.

In support of her action, she alleges infringement of the second
subparagraph of Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1860/76 as
amended by Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1111/2005, infrin-
gement of Article 28a of the Conditions of Employment of
Other Servants of the European Communities, of the provisions
of Commission Regulation 91/88 of 13 January 1988, and of
her legitimate expectations.

Action brought on 7 November 2005 — Tesoka v Euro-
pean Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
Working Conditions

Action brought on 21 October 2005 — Wils v European
Parliament

(Case T-398/05)

(2006/C 10/55)

(Case T-399/05)

(2006/C 10/56)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sabrina Tesoka (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by:
J.-L. Fagnart, lawyer)

Applicant: Dieter Wils (Altrier, Luxembourg)
G. Vandersanden and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

(represented by:

Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living
and Working Conditions

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the explicit decision of rejection of 14 October 2005

— Rule that the applicant may receive all the allowances and
benefits which she can claim by reason of her resignation
of 2 August 2005 pursuant to the second subparagraph of
Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1860/76 amended by
Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1111/2005 of 24 June
2005;

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the applicant's salary slip for January 2005 with
retroactive effect from 1 July 2004, insofar as it increases
the rate of contribution to the pension scheme to 9.75 %,
and order repayment to the applicant of the percentage of
the contribution corresponding to the increase in rate.
Accordingly — in the earlier salary slips — restore the rate
of contribution to the level set before 1 July 2004;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/29

Pleas in law and main arguments

the Parliament, challenges the
The applicant, an official of
increase in the rate of contribution to the pension scheme to
9,75 %,
introduced by Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations,
which came into force on 1 May 2004. In support of his
claims, he alleges the illegality of that annex, in the light of
Article 83(4) of the Staff Regulations, in the version applicable
prior to 1 May 2004. The effect of that latter provision was to
allow the contribution at
issue to be altered for the sole
purpose of ensuring actuarial balance. However, the applicant
submits that the increase in question was decided upon for
other reasons, namely, to cover a pre-existing deficit in the
Community pension scheme.

Furthermore, the applicant claims that the criteria used by
Eurostat to calculate the actuarial balance are based on para-
meters which have led to miscalculations. He also pleads a
breach of the principle of proportionality, in that the increase
in question goes beyond what is strictly necessary to restore
actuarial balance. Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of
his legitimate expectations, since the Parliament clearly let it be
understood that it would not allow the rate of contribution to
be altered otherwise than in strict compliance with the actuarial
balance.

Action brought on 15 November 2005 — MyTravel/
Commission

(Case T-403/05)

(2006/C 10/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): MyTravel Group plc (Rochdale, United Kingdom)
[represented by: D. Pannick, QC, A. Lewis, Barrister, M.
Nicholson, S. Cardell, B. McKenna, Solicitors]

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul, in its entirety or in the alternative in such part as
the Court may determine,
the Commission's decision,
contained in two letters to the applicant's counsel dated 5
September 2005 and 12 October 2005, not to grant to the
applicant access to the report prepared by the Commission
following the judgment of the Court of First Instance, of 6

June 2002, in Case T-342/99, Airtours/Commission, as well
as a number of drafts, working papers and notes, either
relating to the preparation of that report or contained in
the Commission's decision which was
the case file of
annulled by the aforementioned judgment;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, then named ‘Airtours plc.’, brought an applica-
tion requesting the annulment of the Commission's decision
regarding the applicant's merger with another company. By its
judgment in Case T-342/99, Airtours/Commission, the Court
annulled that decision, as requested by the applicant. The appli-
application (Case T-212/03,
cant
MyTravel/Commission),
for damages allegedly incurred by
reason of the Commission's errors and breaches of Community
law in its handling of the case leading to the annulment.

then brought

another

those second proceedings,

In the context of
the applicant,
relying on Regulation 1049/2001 (1), requested the Commis-
sion to grant it access to the report prepared by the Commis-
sion's services following the judgment, as well as a number of
drafts, working papers and notes, either relating to the prepara-
tion of that report or contained in the case file of the Commis-
sion's decision, which had been annulled. By the contested deci-
sion, the Commission rejected the applicant's request, consid-
ering that the exceptions in Article 4, paragraphs 2 and 3, of
Regulation 1049/2001, relating to the protection of court
proceedings and legal advice, of the purposes of inspections,
the Commission's decision
investigations and audits or of
making process, should apply.

The applicant requests the annulment of this decision. It chal-
lenges in detail the Commission's assertions that certain docu-
ments should not be disclosed in order to protect court and
legal proceedings, and considers that it should not be open to
the Commission to rely on the need to protect historic court
proceedings, such as the ones in Case T-342/99, already closed,
in order to resist the disclosure of documents which are central
to the achieving of a just result in separate, ongoing proceed-
ings.

With regard to the protection of investigations, the applicant
contends that the Commission's appraisal of a proposed merger
is not an investigation for the purposes of the exception and
that the exception does not apply to internal enquiries nor
in any event apply to enquiries which are closed.
does it
the applicant considers that disclosure would not
Further,
undermine the purpose of
investigations in similar merger
procedures. The applicant also challenges the Commission's
assertion that an internal audit aimed at modernising adminis-
trative procedures could not be independent if its recommenda-
tions and findings were made public.