CELEX: C2002/144/109
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-98/02: Action brought on 3 April 2002 by Maddalena Lebebef-Caponi against the Commission of the European Communities

15.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 144/55
Action brought on 28 March 2002 by Michael Hohen-                        Action brought on 3 April 2002 by Maddalena Lebebef-
bichler against the Commission of the European Com-                      Caponi against the Commission of the European Com-
                             munities                                                                 munities
                          (Case T-95/02)                                                           (Case T-98/02)
                        (2002/C 144/108)
                                                                                                 (2002/C 144/109)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 28 March 2002 by Michael                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Hohenbichler, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël             European Communities on 3 April 2002 by Maddalena
Louis, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                Lebedef-Caponi, of Senningerberg, Luxembourg, represented
                                                                         by Gille Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision establishing the calcu-            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      lation of the number of years of pensionable service
      under the Staff Regulations to be taken into account
      pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII thereto;                   —     annul the applicant’s staff report for the period 1995 to
                                                                               1997;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     rule on costs; the expenses and fees should be borne by
                                                                               the defendant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in the present case, an official of the defendant
institution, is contesting the way in which the appointing
authority has calculated the number of years of pensionable
service to be taken into account in the context of the transfer          The applicant who is an official at the Commission objects to
to the Community pension scheme of all the pension rights                the dismissal of her claim for annulment of her staff report for
acquired by him prior to his entry into the service of the               the period 1995 to 1997.
Communities.
                                                                         In support of her action she relies on an infringement of the
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads infringement of:          last paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                         infringement of the second paragraph of Article 13 of
                                                                         Framework Agreement governing relations between the Com-
—     Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;              mission of the unions and professional organisations and
                                                                         infringement of the first and second paragraphs of Article 15
                                                                         of the Framework Agreement. She argues that some of the
—     the general provisions for the implementation of
                                                                         findings are not justified and that there are various errors and
      Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;
                                                                         omissions in the staff report. In addition, she argues that she
                                                                         suffered psychological harassment during the time when she
—     the principle of equal treatment.                                  was acting as a staff representative.