CELEX: C2001/173/61
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-60/01: Action brought on 13 March 2001 by Marie-Josée Bollendorff against the European Parliament

C 173/34              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.6.2001
Action brought on 13 March 2001 by Marie-Josée Bollen-                   Action brought on 19 March 2001 by Afrikanische Frucht-
            dorff against the European Parliament                        Compagnie GmbH against the Council of the European
                                                                         Union and the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-60/01)
                                                                                                   (Case T-64/01)
                        (2001/C 173/61)                                                           (2001/C 173/62)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: German)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before             An action against the Council of the European Union and the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  Commission of the European Communities was brought
on 13 March 2000 by Marie-Josée Bollendorff, residing at                 before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Bertrange (Luxembourg), represented by Laurent Mosar, avo-               on 19 March 2001 by Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie GmbH,
cat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                          established in Hamburg (Germany), represented by Gerrit
                                                                         Schohe, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                         bourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision by which the appointing authority
      took the view that the applicant’s absence from 21 March           —     order the defendants to pay to the applicant
      2000 to 30 April 2000 was irregular and deducted 194                     EUR 1 358 228 together with interest thereon at the rate
      working hours from her annual leave entitlement;                         of 3,75 % from the date of pronouncement of judgment
                                                                               and reasonable compensation for the inflation which has
                                                                               occurred since 1 January 1999, at the further rate of at
—     order the European Parliament to pay the costs.                          least 1,1 % per annum on EUR 1 358 228 ;
                                                                         —     declare that the defendants are obliged to compensate the
                                                                               applicant for all further loss and damage suffered or to be
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                suffered by it as a result of Regulations (EC)
                                                                               Nos 1637/98 and 2362/98 and, in particular, the rules
                                                                               contained therein;
The applicant’s incapacity for work, certified by two doctors,
was contested by the institution’s medical officer. Those two            —     reserve its decision as to costs.
doctors then confirmed their certificates, and the applicant
was absent during the period covered by the certificates. Later
on, the applicant discovered that the time for which she had
been absent during the period in question had been deducted              Pleas in law and main arguments
from her annual leave entitlement.
                                                                         The applicant has for many years sold bananas from third
                                                                         countries to customers in Austria, Finland and Sweden.
In support of her claim, the applicant maintains that the
deduction decision was adopted in breach of Articles 59 and
60 [of the Staff Regulations] and that it therefore has no legal         The action concerns the calculation of the applicant’s reference
basis whatever.                                                          quantities for 1999. According to the applicant, that calcu-
                                                                         lation is characterised by three special features which derogate
                                                                         from the rules governing the organisation of the market
                                                                         applying in respect of the years prior to 1999, and as a result
According to the applicant, no decision concerning a
                                                                         of which the market operators existing in the Community up
deduction from her annual leave entitlement was notified to
                                                                         until 31 December 1994 have been placed at a disadvantage,
her by the head of the Personnel Division, and the appointing
                                                                         whilst advantageous treatment has been afforded to operators
authority at no time communicated to the applicant any
                                                                         in the new Member States. First, the rule governing the
decision which would have enabled her to comment on the
                                                                         determination of the reference period has been changed.
fact that the certificates were contested. Consequently, the
                                                                         Next, in calculating the reference quantities for 1999, the
European Parliament has infringed Article 25 of the Staff
                                                                         Community proceeded on the basis of excessively high quanti-
Regulations.
                                                                         ties in so far as concerns market operators in Austria, Finland
                                                                         and Sweden. Lastly, although the reference quantities for 1999
                                                                         should have been calculated in accordance with Articles 3 and
                                                                         5 of Regulation No 1442/93 (1), they were in fact calculated in
                                                                         accordance with the criterion of the so-called ‘actual importer’.