Case F-134/07: Action brought on 3 December 2007 — Adjemian and Others v Commission
Date: 2007-12-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, contract staff, work contract

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;

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/67

— Annul the decisions of the Commission of 23 August and
31 October 2007 rejecting complaints R/263/07, R/492/07
and R/390/07 brought against the decisions of the Commis-
sion to conclude contracts with or to renew the engagement
of the applicants as contract staff only for a fixed period;

— Annul

the decision of

the Commission of 5 September
2007 rejecting the applications of the applicants of 31 May
and 20 July 2007 seeking the extension for an indefinite
period of
the
contract staff;

the applicants' contracts as members of

the decision was

The applicant puts forward,
in support of his arguments
concerning the rejection by the defendant, the three following
pleas in law: (1) absolute lack of any statement of reasons, also
inconsistent, unreasonable,
that
confused, a mere pretext and relied on inadequate preparatory
inquiries; (2) serious, obvious and manifest infringement of law;
(3) breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials
and of the principle of sound administration.

illogical,

— Annul the decisions of the Commission which lay down the
respective conditions of the employment of the applicants in
so far as their engagement or the extension thereof
is
limited to a fixed period;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Action brought on 29 December 2007 — Luigi Marcuccio
v Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-146/07)

(2008/C 64/110)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase,
Cipressa, lawyer)

Italy)

(represented by G.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the dispute

Action brought against the rejection by the defendant of the
applicant's request that it should carry out or conclude an inves-
tigation relating to the fact that on 29 October 2001, in the
premises of the European Commission's delegation in Angola
where he was employed as an official of the defendant, and
during working hours,
the applicant came accidentally into
contact with a whitish powder of unknown nature and that it
should provide him with any information as to what befell the
sample of
that powder and concerning the procedures for
keeping the sample and for gaining access to it.

Form of order sought by the applicant

— annul, in so far as necessary, the note dated 23 February

2007, prot. ADMINB.2/MB/nb D(07)4623;

— annul the decision, however framed, which constituted rejec-
tion by the defendant of the request of 10 October 2006
submitted by the applicant to the appointing authority;

— annul, in so far as necessary, the decision, however framed,
rejecting the complaint dated 27 April 2007 submitted by
the applicant to the appointing authority;

— annul, in so far as necessary, the note dated 4 September

2007 prot. ADMINB.2/MB/ls D(07) 19393;

for

— establish the fact that the defendant did not carry out, or did
not conclude, any suitable investigation,
including therein
any measures preparatory or consequential to such investiga-
the purpose of ascertaining any circumstance,
tion,
whether occurring earlier or later,
in any way whatsoever
connected with the fact that on 29 October 2001, in the
premises of
the European Commission's delegation in
Angola where he was at that time employed as an official of
the applicant
the defendant, and during working hours,
came accidentally into contact with a whitish powder of
unknown nature;

— establish and declare that the failure to conduct any investi-

gation was unlawful;

— order the defendant to carry out or conclude the investiga-
tion, to perform a series of relevant acts consequential upon
the latter, to supply the applicant with pieces of information
concerning the event of 29 October 2001 and to guarantee
the applicant access to the sample of dust;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant, as indemnifica-
tion for that part of the damage already irreversibly caused
to date as a result of the failure to carry out the investiga-
tion, the sum of EUR 3 000 000, or such greater or lesser
sum as the Court of First Instance may consider just and
fair;