CELEX: C2005/315/25
Language: en
Date: 2005-12-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-359/05: Action brought on  26 September 2005  — Franklin and Others v Commission

10.12.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 315/13
            
         Action brought on 26 September 2005 — Franklin and Others v Commission
   (Case T-359/05)
   (2005/C 315/25)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant(s): Franklin and Others (Sorée, Belgium) (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)
   
      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the implied decision refusing assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay collective compensation for the damage suffered by the applicants as a result;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, all Commission officials or other servants, had applied for their pension rights acquired in Belgium to be transferred to the Community scheme, in accordance with the provisions of a Belgian law adopted in 1991. In 2003, Belgium adopted a new law which, according to the applicants, prescribes more advantageous conditions for new transfers of that type. However, the applicants, having already transferred their rights, could not use the provisions of the 2003 law.
   Following a meeting to provide information, which took place on 9 December 2004, the applicants learned that the Commission did not propose to help its officials and temporary agents to obtain the transfer which was most satisfactory for them.
   By their action, they challenge that Commission decision, which they classify as a refusal of assistance in breach of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations. In addition to that article, they also rely in support of their action on infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, the prohibition on arbitrary conduct, the obligation to give reasons, the principle of legitimate expectations and the rule 'patere legem quam ipse fecisti', and an abuse of powers.