CELEX: C1995/074/25
Language: en
Date: 1995-03-25 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Akli Chehab against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-10/95)

25.3.95            I EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 74/13
    together with interest thereon at 8% from 19 May               Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Akli Chehab against
    1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings as             the Commission of the European Communities
    well as those of the assessor in the amount of DM
                                                                                           (Case T-10/95 )
    7 910,16 ;
                                                                                            ( 95/C 74/25 )
2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case
    T-77/93 Hiilseberg and Others v. Council and                                  (Language of the case: French)
    Commission and also stay the proceedings .
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 23 January 1995
                                                                   by Akli Chehab, residing in Paris ( France ), represented by
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in        Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Case T-20/94 .                                                     service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                   Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   — annul the Commission's decision of 22 March 1994 in
                                                                       so far as it restricts to 3 % the additional rate of
Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Wilhelm Pelle                     permanent partial invalidity reflecting the deterioration
against Council of the European Union and Commission of                of the applicant's state of health,
                 the European Communities
                       (Case T-8/95 )                              — order the Commission, to pay the costs.
                        ( 95/C 74/24 )
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
               (Language of the case: German)                      As a result of two accidents, in January 1978 and January
                                                                   1983 , the applicant, who is a former official of the
                                                                   Commission, is entitled to a partial invalidity rate of 10 %
An action against the Council of the European Union and            and an additional invalidity rate of 5 % . Since his state of
Commission of the European Communities was brought                 health had deteriorated, he submitted a request that his case
before the Court of First Instance of the European                 be re-examined . On completion of the procedure set out in
Communities on 23 January 1995 by Wilhelm Pelle,                   the Staff Regulations, the Commission proposed that he be
Kluse-Ahlen (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by          granted a permanent partial invalidity rate of 8 % ; it asked
Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Diising, Dietrich Manstetten,         for the number of his bank account, which could be credited
Frank Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwalte,               with a sum corresponding to a permanent partial invalidity
Miinster, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the         rate of 3% , representing the deterioration of his state of
Chambers of Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des Bains .                 health by comparison with the findings of the last Medical
                                                                   Committee which convened on 20 March 1989 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   The applicant claims that that constitutes an infringement of
                                                                   Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 1 9 et seq. of
1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant           the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European
    SLOM I compensation for the period from 2 March                Communities against the Risk of Accident and of
     1985 to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM
                                                                   Occupational Disease. He also claims that the contested
     81 159,764, together with interest thereon at 8 % from        decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
     19 May 1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the
    proceedings;
                                                                   The applicant states in particular that an opinion given by
                                                                   the Medical Committee plainly affirmed a continuing state
2 . Join the present action to that aleady pending in Case         of 8 % permanent invalidity. That opinion was elucidated in
    T-77/93 Hiilseberg and Others v. Council and                   the additional opinion given by the Medical Committee on
    Commission and also stay the proceedings .                     26 November 1993 where it was made clear that the
                                                                   discrepancy between the rate of permanent invalidity
                                                                   decided by an expert appointed in accordance with the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                    medical procedure and that decided by the Medical
                                                                   Committee itself is explained by the fact that the Committee
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in        considered that the applicant had a pre-existing
Case T-20/94 .                                                     condition.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the decision in dispute is vitiated
                                                                   by a manifest error of assessment in so far as it restricts to
 ---pagebreak---  No C 74/14            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25 . 3 . 95
 3% the additional rate of permanent partial invalidity             deserving candidates and to include officials from lower
which he suffers following the deterioration of his state of        down the list gof officials proposed unless it was established
health .                                                            that their merits were at least equal to his. He notes that the
                                                                    list of officials proposed is drawn up specifically in order of
                                                                    merit, which implies that the promotion committee
                                                                    unlawfully gave preference to the criterion of seniority over
                                                                    that of merit. It follows, he argues, that there has been a
                                                                    breach of the Staff Regulations and of the proper procedure
                                                                    for promotion.
Action brought on 24 January 1995 by Jose Hodar against
       the Commission of the European Communities                   Lastly, the applicant points out that there are no objective
                        (Case T-12/95 )                             factors to demonstrate why the promotion committee did
                          ( 95/C 74/26                              not include his name on the list in question when the four
                                                                    officials below him on the list of names proposed were
                                                                    included; the same applies to the inclusion on the list of
                 (Language of the case: French)                     officials who were not on the list of officials proposed.
                                                                    Accordingly, he considers that the decision infringed the
An action against the Commission of the European                    obligation to state the grounds on which it was based, as laid
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   down in Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
Instance of the European Communities on 24 January 1995
by Jose Hodar, resident in Redange (France), represented by
Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Sari Fiduciaire
Myson, 1 Rue Glesener.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance               Action brought on 24 January 1995 by Nicolaos Kyrpitsis
should :                                                                     against the Economic and Social Committee
                                                                                            ( Case T-13/95 )
— annul the Commission's decision not to place the                                            ( 95/C 74/27)
     applicant on the list of officials considered most
     deserving of promotion to Grade D1 for the year
     1994,                                                                           (Language of the case: French)
— so far as is necessary, annul all subsequent decisions
     adopted in relation to promotion to Grade D1 for the           An action against the Economic and Social Committee was
     year 1994, and more particularly the decision not to           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
     promote the applicant to that grade,                           Communities on 24 January 1995 by Nicolaos Kyrpitsis,
                                                                   resident in Gendebien, Belgium, represented by Jean-Noel
                                                                    Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                    Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue Glesener.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
                                                                    should :
The applicant claims that he was placed on the list of
officials eligible for promotion to Grade D1 proposed by
DG IX for the promotion year 1994. He was not, however,            — annul the decisions to reject his candidature for vacant
included on the list of the most deserving officials drawn up            posts 2/94, 3/94 and 4/94,
by the promotion committee, whereas the committee did
include on that list some officials placed below him on the        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
list of officials proposed by DG IX as well as some officials
who had not even been proposed.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Firstly, the applicant claims that the inclusion in the list of
most deserving candidates of officials who had not been            In support of his action, the applicant alleges breach of
proposed and who had a 'normal' career profile ( statistical       Article 29 of the Staff Regulations and the vacancy notice
representation of the group of officials eligible for              and also a manifest error of assessment and breach of
promotion, based on the objective factors of age and               Article 45 of the Regulations.
seniority) is contrary to the Commission's decision of
24 November 1976 concerning promotions, which provides             The applicant claims that the appointing authority has
that only 'slow' career officials can be so included.              acknowledged that it transferred an official to one of the
                                                                   vacant posts without consideration of the comparative
The applicant also claims that it was not open to the              merits of all the officials who applied for transfer to that
promotion committee to exclude him from the list of most           post. He concludes accordingly that the decision rejecting