Case F-130/07: Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Vinci v European Central Bank
Date: 2007-10-31
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Central Bank, action by staff, data processing, data protection, medical data, medical examination, personal data

C 8/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.1.2008

Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Menidiatis v
Commission

Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Kremlis v
Commission

(Case F-128/07)

(2008/C 8/56)

Language of the case: French

(Case F-129/07)

(2008/C 8/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Menidiatis
(represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

(Sint-Genesius-Rode, Belgium)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul

the Commission decision of 21 December 2006
rejecting the applicant's candidature for the vacant post of
head of representation of the Commission to Greece and
appointing another candidate to that post;

Parties

Applicant: Georges-Stavros Kremlis (Brussels, Belgium)
sented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

(repre-

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul

the Commission decision of 21 December 2006,
rejecting the applicant's candidature for the vacant post of
head of representation of the Commission to Greece and
appointing another candidate to that post;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant relies on a number of
pleas in law against the decision to reject his candidature for the
vacant post of head of representation of the Commission to
Greece. First, he pleads
the selection procedure was
unlawful and not complied with. Secondly, he pleads that the
notice of vacancy was unlawful and not complied with.

that

A further plea in law alleges infringement of Article 11a of the
Staff Regulations. Moreover, the applicant pleads the unlawful-
ness of the downgrading of the post of head of representation
in Athens and the unlawfulness of the decision of 7 July 2004
concerning the detailed rules for filling head-of-representation
posts.

In addition, the lateness of the publication of the notice of
vacancy is relied on along with the failure to state reasons for
refusing access to the documents requested by the applicant in
his complaint. Finally, the applicant relies on the breach of the
rules concerning the rotation of staff occupying ‘sensitive posts’
and submits that there are numerous factors indicating a misuse
of powers.

The applicant relies on very similar pleas in law to those relied
on in Case F-128/07, the notice of which is published in this
issue of the Official Journal of the European Union.

Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Vinci v European
Central Bank

(Case F-130/07)

(2008/C 8/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Fiorella Vinci (Schöneck, Germany) (represented by: B.
Karthaus, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/33

Form of order sought

— Find that the inclusion of the defendant's letter of 5 March
2007 (07) 139a H KK7bk HEAL and of the letter of 5 March
2007 (07) 139b H KK/bk HEAL, and the storage of the
‘medical certificate’ of Dr Schön of 24 April 2007 in the
personal file, and the inclusion of the result of the examina-
tion of the Deutsche Klinik für Diagnostik concerning the
applicant's state of health of 2 April 2007 in the medical
file, is unlawful;

— Find that the defendant's decision of 3 September 2007
(07) 772 PSR JMC/cc APPE, by which it refuses to delete the
personal data contained in the documents referred to under
point 1 above, is unlawful;

— Find that the defendant's order of 5 March 2007 to submit

to a medical examination, lacks legal effect;

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 10 000;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks first an order finding that the inclusion of
the documents referred to in that application in her personal
file and in the separately kept medical file is unlawful. Second,
the applicant seeks a finding that the refusal of the defendant to
In its
delete the illegally obtained personal data is unlawful.

reasoning, the applicant claims that Staff Rule 5.13.4 of the
European Central Bank (ECB), which does not provide a basis
for the processing of the categories of personal data referred to
in Article 10 of Regulation No 45/2001 of the Council and of
the European Parliament of 18 December 2002 on the protec-
tion of individuals with regard to the processing of personal
data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free
movement of such data (‘Regulation No 45/2001’), and which,
contrary to Article 10(2)(b) of Regulation No 45/2001, does
not lay down any objective which would make processing neces-
sary, precludes the obtaining and storage of the medical data.

Thirdly, the applicant seeks an order annulling the Commis-
sion's decision of 5 March 2007 by which the applicant was
ordered to undergo a medical examination. The applicant
derives the nullity from the objection of abuse of discretion and
from the failure to observe the essential procedural rules which
are contained in Staff Rule 5.13.4. That rule provides that it is
only the ‘Medical Adviser’ established at the ECB who is entitled
to order further measures of a medical nature such as examina-
tions, and not the applicant's direct superior.

Furthermore, the applicant claims compensation for non-mate-
rial damage which she suffered as a result of having to undergo
a full medical examination for which there was no adequate
legal basis.