CELEX: C2003/083/49
Language: en
Date: 2003-04-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-19/03: Action brought on 22 January 2003 by Spyridoula Konstantopoulou against Court of Justice of the European Communities

5.4.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 83/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     award EUR 1 000 by way of damages as compensation
                                                                                for non-material damage, that amount being fixed ex
                                                                                aequo et bono;
The applicant is an official of the Commission. She was
assigned to Cadarache and then reassigned to Brussels. The
applicant challenged the decision to reassign her in Case                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
T-355/01, which resulted in a settlement being reached with
the Commission and in the applicant’s being seconded to
Cadarache. However, the Commission took the view that the
applicant had received the weighting for France and the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
expatriation allowance without being entitled to do so. The
applicant was also deprived of the ‘secretarial allowance’ and
of the fixed allowance for travelling expenses.                           By his action the applicant, an official of the Commission,
                                                                          challenges the validity of his staff report for the period 1995-
In support of her action, the applicant claims that there has             1997 and claims damages for the faults allegedly committed
been an infringement of Articles 59 and 64 of the Staff                   by the Commission in preparing that report.
Regulations and Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations
and an infringement of Article 71 of the Staff Regulations and
Articles 5 to 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. The               He claims that the report infringes Article 43 of the Staff
applicant also claims that there has been a breach of the                 Regulations and the provisions of the Guide to Staff Reports.
obligation to state reasons and an infringement of the principle          Thus, notwithstanding the opinion of the Joint Committee
of non-discrimination.                                                    on Staff Reports pointing out significant procedural and
                                                                          substantive irregularities, the appeal assessor did not find it
In the alternative, as regards the weighting for France and the           necessary to correct them. In addition, that the report was
expatriation allowance, the applicant claims that there has               completed after an unreasonable period of time was the
been an infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations.              Commission’s fault alone. Similarly, the assessors systemati-
The applicant also claims that there has been an infringement             cally refused to hold a prior interview with the applicant as
of Article 4a of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, an                   provided for by the Guide to Staff Reports. Furthermore, the
infringement of the general principle that an institution must            quite irregular drafting of the report reflected a more general
comply with the rules which it itself has made and a breach of            ‘mobbing’ attitude from which the applicant had suffered for
the obligation to state reasons as regards the secretarial                some years.
allowance.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the very negative assessments in his
Last, the applicant claims that there has been an infringement            report are clearly unfounded and that the Commission has
of the general principle of sound management and good                     failed in its duty to have regard for the interests of officials and
administration and a breach of the duty to have regard for the            has failed to observe the principle of sound administration.
welfare of officials.
Action brought on 13 January 2003 by Albano Ferrer de
Moncada against Commission of the European Communi-
                                ties                                      Action brought on 22 January 2003 by Spyridoula Kon-
                                                                          stantopoulou against Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                                    Communities
                         (Case T-16/03)
                         (2003/C 83/48)                                                             (Case T-19/03)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 83/49)
An action against Commission of the European Communities                                      (Language of the case: French)
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 13 January 2003 by Albano Ferrer de
Moncada, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Georges
Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.                An action against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               European Communities on 22 January 2003 by Spyridoula
                                                                          Konstantopoulou, residing in Ioannina (Greece), represented
—     annul his staff report for the reference period 1995-1997;          by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- C 83/22                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          5.4.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Action brought on 21 January 2003 by ‘S’ against the
                                                                                    Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of the selection board of 23 October
      2002 not to admit the applicant to the oral test in general                                   (Case T-21/03)
      competition CJ/LA/14;
                                                                                                    (2003/C 83/50)
—     annul the express rejection of the complaint lodged by
      the applicant as notified on 9 November 2003 by letter
      from Marc Ronayne;
                                                                                              (Language of the case: French)
—     in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 21 January 2003 by S, represented
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            by Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal,
                                                                           lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant, a candidate in general competition CJ/LA/14,                The applicant claims that the Court should:
organised by the Court of Justice with a view to constituting a
reserve list of Greek-language lawyer-linguists, objects to not
being admitted to the oral test for having failed to obtain the            —     Annul the decision of 11 March 2002 of the Head of the
minimum requisite marks in the first compulsory written                          ‘Occupational disease and accident insurance’ sector
paper (translation of a legal text drafted in French).                           rejecting the applicant’s request to have removed from
                                                                                 the file forwarded to the medical officer all reports drawn
                                                                                 up to her knowledge relating to her ability, efficiency and
                                                                                 conduct;
In support of her arguments, the applicant alleges:
                                                                           —     order the defendant to withdraw from the file forwarded
                                                                                 to the medical officer the originals of the reports in
—     failure to observe the duty to state reasons. The applicant                question, send them to the applicant and destroy all
      claims in that regard that the selection board cannot rely                 copies;
      on the secrecy of its deliberations in order not to fulfil
      the obligation to give reasons to a candidate who requests
      them;                                                                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     irregularities in the conduct of the tests in the competition
      and breach of the principle of equality as between the
      candidates in that, in view of the system for preserving             Pleas in law and main arguments
      the anonymity of the candidates, the applicant is justified
      in wondering whether the written test script attributed to
      her when the tests were being marked is indeed hers. That
      method for ensuring anonymity, which she describes as                The applicant in these proceedings objects to all the reports
      unusual, constitutes, furthermore, a substantive irregu-             relating to her ability, efficiency and conduct, which have to
      larity.                                                              her knowledge been drawn up, not placed in her personal file
                                                                           and communicated to the defendant’s medical officer, being
                                                                           made available to the medical committee called upon to give a
—     infringement of the competition notice and of Article 5              decision on her case in response to a request for her illness to
      of Annex III to the Staff Regulations; manifest error of             be recognised as occupational in origin.
      assessment. The applicant states in that respect that the
      purpose of the test in question was to assess whether
      each of the candidates had perfect command of Greek
      and good knowledge of French on the basis of objective               In support of her claims, the applicant alleges infringement of
      criteria which were identical for each of the candidates.            her right to a fair hearing and of Articles 26 and 43 of the
                                                                           Staff Regulations.