Case F-124/05: Action brought on  16 December 2005  — A v Commission
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, disciplinary proceedings, personnel administration, regulations for civil servants

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/47

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Action brought on 16 December 2005 — A v Commission

— designate an expert;

(Case F-124/05)

(2006/C 86/86)

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

(Language of the case: French)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Parties

Applicant: A (Port-Vendres, France) (represented by: B. Cambier
and L. Cambier, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the defendant's decision of 28 February 2005
rejecting the request submitted by the applicant on 22
October 2004 on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff
Regulations of officials of the European Communities, and
the disciplinary proceedings
seeking the conclusion of
brought against him by a decision of 16 January 2004;

— annul

the defendant's decision of 26 September 2005
dismissing the applicant's complaint submitted on 20 May
2005 on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations,
and seeking the reversal of the abovementioned decision of
28 February 2005;

— rule that the abovementioned request of the applicant of 22

October 2004 is admissible and well-founded;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant and his family the
provisional sum of EUR 1 581 801, which corresponds to
half of the loss caused by the decision to set in motion and
continue the disciplinary proceedings brought against the
applicant, the other half of which is to be specified with the
assistance of an expert;

— order the defendant to pay 8 % interest on all of the sums
above, and to do so as from 23 November 1999, the date
of the conclusion of the first report of the internal investi-
gation carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office
(OLAF) in which the first signs of prejudice towards the
applicant are shown, or, alternatively, as from 16 January
2004, the date on which the Appointing Authority decided
to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant;

In support of his action, the applicant advances six pleas.

In the first, he claims that the disciplinary proceedings at issue
were set in motion exclusively on account of the criminal
proceedings introduced against him, which were settled by a
final decision that there was no need to rule on the matter,
given by the Brussels Chambre du Conseil (the court sitting in
chambers) on 30 June 2004. The disciplinary proceedings, in
his view, should therefore be treated in the same way.

In the second plea, the applicant invokes the authority of res
judicata with respect to the abovementioned decision that there
was no need to rule on the matter, against which the defendant
did not lodge an appeal.

In the alternative, should it be held that
the Appointing
Authority can take further steps in the disciplinary proceedings
based on facts judged once and for all by the Brussels Chambre
du Conseil not to be proven, the applicant submits, in his third
plea, that the contested decisions wrongly link the outcome of
the proceedings brought against him with the outcome of the
proceedings taking place against Ms Cresson.

Subsequently, in the fourth and fifth pleas, the applicant argues
the
the charges against him are wrong and that
that
Appointing Authority has infringed the duty to have regard for
the interests of officials laid down in Article 24 of the Staff
Regulations and the principle of the protection of legitimate
expectations, in so far as it has not done everything within its
power to understand the true course of events.

in his final plea, the applicant submits that,
in any
Lastly,
event,
the reasonable period within which the Appointing
Authority should have taken a decision expired a long time
ago, as the facts date from the years 1995-1996.

the applicant
Regarding the application for compensation,
claims that the defendant's misconduct is at the root of his
nervous breakdown which forced him to end his career as an
official prematurely. That event has caused him and his family
material and non-material damage.