CELEX: C2007/056/82
Language: en
Date: 2007-03-10 00:00:00
Title: Case F-3/07: Action brought on 18 January 2007 — Moschonaki v EUROFOUND

10.3.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 56/43
            
         Action brought on 18 January 2007 — Moschonaki v EUROFOUND
   (Case F-3/07)
   (2007/C 56/82)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Chrysanthe Moschonaki (Ballybrack, Ireland) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (EUROFOUND)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the director of EUROFOUND not to authorise the applicant's mission to take part in the meeting of 30 and 31 March 2006 of the Assembly of Agency Staff Committees,
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of her action, the applicant asserts principally that in refusing her mission application to attend the meeting of 30 and 31 March 2006 of the Assembly of Agency Staff Committees, EUROFOUND infringed Articles 24b and 9(3) of the Staff Regulations and the sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex 2 to the Staff Regulations, which lay down freedom of association and trade union representation, the consultation and management role of the Staff Committee and the prohibition on any disadvantages accruing to a member of staff by virtue of carrying out the functions of members of the Staff Committee.
   The applicant relies moreover on the infringement of Article 110(4) of the Staff Regulations and Article 126 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants. It follows from these provisions that regular consultations must take place between the administrations of the institutions and agencies, with the participation of Staff Committees, in order to ensure a uniform application of the Staff Regulations.
   It is claimed that the contested decision also infringes the principle of good management and sound administration.