Case F-122/07: Action brought on 25 October 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2007-10-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European civil service, action by staff, duties of civil servants, regulations for civil servants

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/65

Re:

the

EPSO's decision of
annulment of
Application for
14 December 2006 not to ask the applicant to fill out an appli-
cation form with a view to his possible admission to a competi-
tion and for compensation for the damage he has suffered.

authority, infringement of several provisions of the Staff Regula-
tions of Officials of the European Communities and infringe-
ment of Article 19 of the European Code of Good Administra-
tive Behaviour, infringement of the principles applicable to the
rights of the defence and to good administration and infringe-
ment of the Parliament's duty to have regard for the welfare of
officials.

Operative part of the order

1. The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. Each party shall bear its own costs.

Action brought on 25 October 2007 — Marcuccio v
Commission

Action brought on 8 October 2007 — Tomas v Parliament

(Case F-116/07)

(2008/C 64/107)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

(Case F-122/07)

(2008/C 64/108)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Stanislovas Tomas (Kerkrade, Netherlands)
sented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

(repre-

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase,
Cipressa, lawyer)

Italy)

(represented by: G.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the appointing authority to dismiss
the applicant to the extent that it has not been annulled by
the decision to reject the complaint, or annul the decision to
reject the complaint to the extent that it has not annulled
the dismissal decision;

— Order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of
EUR 125 000 as compensation for the non-material and
material damage suffered by the applicant;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks annulment of the decision by which the
appointing authority decided to dismiss him and compensation
for
In support of his action, he
contends that there has been abuse of office by the appointing

the damage he suffered.

— set aside memorandum RELEX.K.4 D(2006) 522434 of

30 November 2006;

— set aside memorandum D(2007) 502458 of 15 February

2007;

— set aside the decision closing the investigation into the inci-
dent of 6 September 2001 when the applicant sought the
assistance of the security service of the European Commis-
sion delegation in Angola for the purpose of replacing a tyre
on his car;

— set aside the defendant's decision, howsoever drawn up, to
reject the request of 1 September 2006 which the applicant
had forwarded to the appointing authority;

— set aside, to the extent necessary, memorandum ADMIN.B.2/

MB/nb D(07) 16072 of 16 July 2007;

— set aside, to the extent necessary, the decision, howsoever
drawn up, to reject the complaint of 26 march 2007 which
the applicant had forwarded to the appointing authority;

C 64/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.3.2008

— order the defendant to conduct an investigation for the
purpose of establishing the events of 5 May 2003 when the
head ad interim of administration of the EC delegation in
from the parking lot
Angola drove the applicant's car
outside his accommodation to a location approximately four
kilometres away,
the events of 6 September 2001, and
whether there is any link between those events, and to
notify the applicant without delay of the results of the inves-
tigation, to display in a number of suitable and visible loca-
tions notices containing in extract form the findings of the
investigation and to ensure access to those findings; in the
alternative, order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by
way of compensation for the now irreversible harm resulting
from the decision rejecting the request of 1 September
2006, the sum of EUR 100 000, or such other greater or
lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem to be fair and equi-
table, and, with regard to the harm which will occur after
the date on which this present application is made, the sum
of EUR 20, or such other greater or lesser sum as the
Tribunal may deem to be fair and equitable, for each day
from the date following that on which this present applica-
tion is made to the date on which, on conclusion of the
investigation, the applicant will be notified and the findings
given adequate publicity;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of
compensation for the now irreversible harm resulting from
the refusal to send him an Italian translation of the memor-
andum of 30 November 2006, the sum of EUR 20 000, or
such other greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem
to be fair and equitable, and, with regard to the harm which
will occur after the date on which this present application is
made, the sum of EUR 2, or such other greater or lesser
sum as the Tribunal may deem to be fair and equitable, for
each day from the date following that on which this present
application is made to the date on which all measures are
adopted to give effect to the annulment of the refusal;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of
compensation for the harm — both that which has already
occurred and that which is liable to occur in the future —
resulting from the decision to close the investigation, so far
as concerns the harm which has now occurred irreversibly,
the sum of EUR 20 000, or such other greater or lesser sum
as the Tribunal may deem to be fair and equitable, to be
paid immediately after judgment has been delivered in this
case, and, with regard to the harm which will occur after the
date on which this present application is made, the sum of
EUR 25, or such other greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal
may deem to be fair and equitable, for each day from the
date following that on which this present application is
made to the date on which the defendant will have adopted
all measures to give effect to the requisite annulment of the
decision to close the investigation;

— confirm the illegality of the fact that, at least up to the date
on which he received the memorandum of 30 November
2006, the applicant was not provided with any notification
of the decision to close the investigation;

— declare unlawful the failure to notify the applicant that the

investigation had been closed;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of
compensation for the harm resulting from the failure to
notify the latter that the investigation had been closed, the
sum of EUR 50 000, or such other greater or lesser sum as
the Tribunal may deem to be fair and equitable;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

inter alia, want of

In support of the form of order sought, the applicant invokes
the following three pleas: (1) absolute lack of reasons, by virtue
inconsistency, unreasonableness,
of,
confusion, lack of good faith and absence or inadequacy of the
investigation; (2) serious, patent and manifest breach of
law;
(3) breach of the duty of care and of the duty to ensure sound
administration.

logic,

Action brought on 3 December 2007 — Adjemian and
Others v Commission

(Case F-134/07)

(2008/C 64/109)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Vahan Adjemian (Angera, Italy) and Others (repre-
sented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions of the Commission, first, refusing
to renew the engagement of the applicants as contract staff for a
fixed or indefinite period and, second, laying down conditions
of employment. In support of their action, the applicants rely
on infringement of the principle of stability of employment rela-
tions and in particular the unlawfulness of Article 88 of the
Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European
Communities (‘Conditions of Employment’) in so far as it limits
the duration of the contracts of contract staff.

Form of order sought

— Annul the successive decisions of the Commission and in
particular that of 28 April 2004 concerning the maximum
duration of
in its
services;

the recourse to non-permanent staff

— Declare Article 88 of

the Conditions of Employment
unlawful in so far as it limits the duration of the contracts
for contract staff;