CELEX: C2000/163/67
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-97/00: Action brought on 20 April 2000 by Anastassia Vakalopoulou against the Commission of the European Communities

C 163/34                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.6.2000
Action brought on 20 April 2000 by Anastassia Vakalo-                     Action brought on 20 April 2000 by Ignacio Samper
poulou against the Commission of the European Com-                                       against the European Parliament
                              munities
                                                                                                    (Case T-99/00)
                           (Case T-97/00)
                                                                                                  (2000/C 163/68)
                          (2000/C 163/67)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          on 20 April 2000 by Ignacio Samper, residing in Madrid,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar.
European Communities on 20 April 2000 by Anastassia
Vakalopoulou, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël
Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — annul the appointing authority’s decision of 9 June 1999,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   inasmuch as it provides that the date from which the
                                                                              applicant’s promotion to grade A 4 is to take effect is to
— annul the Commission’s decision not to extend the appli-                    be 1 January 1998 and not 1 January 1997;
    cant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff beyond
    30 September 1999;                                                    — order the European Parliament to pay all the costs in any
                                                                              event.
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant the remuner-
    ation which she should have received since 1 October
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
    1999, subject to deduction there from of any allowances
    and remuneration received;
                                                                          In consequence of the judgment of the Court of Justice of
                                                                          18 March 1999 in Case C-304/97 P, which annulled the
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          applicant’s appointment to the post of head of division in the
                                                                          Parliament’s Information Office in Madrid, he was reclassified
                                                                          in grade A 5 with effect from 1 April 1995. By the contested
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           decision, the appointing authority promoted him to grade A 4
                                                                          with effect from 1 January 1998. Consequently, the applicant’s
                                                                          application for the post of head of the Information Office in
The applicant states that the Commission had decided, in                  Madrid could not be accepted, since he did not possess the
consequence of an agreement concluded with regard to                      two years’ seniority in the requisite grade as at 7 May 1999,
contractual staff in the context of the harmonisation of                  that date being the deadline for the submission of applications
technical arrangements, to grant contracts to certain members             for the post in question.
of the temporary staff on condition that those persons had
submitted applications to participate in an open competition              The applicant disputes the date from which the contested
or fulfilled the criteria for admission to a future competition.          decision is to take effect. On a correct application of Article
                                                                          45 of the Staff Regulations, and of the general provisions for
                                                                          giving effect thereto, as provided for by Article 110 of the Staff
In the applicant’s view, she fulfilled the conditions prescribed          Regulations, he should have been appointed to grade A 4 by
by the agreement and was thus entitled to an extension of her             1 January 1997 at the latest.
contract. The contested decision was thus adopted in breach
of the principle of equality of treatment between members of
the temporary staff.                                                      In support of his claims, the applicant pleads, in particular, that
                                                                          the defendant has infringed the third and fourth paragraphs of
                                                                          Article 24 and Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, and that it
Moreover, the Commission has infringed Article 25 of the                  has disregarded several general principles of law, including
Staff Regulations and the principle of the right to a fair hearing,       inter alia the principle of equal treatment as between officials.
in that it has provided no explanation enabling the applicant             He observes that the appointing authority erred in its revision
to understand the reasons for which her contract was not                  of his career and that it failed to take adequate account of the
extended.                                                                 mobility shown by him as head of division in an external
                                                                          office.