CELEX: C1999/226/58
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-110/99: Action brought on 3 May 1999 by Josée Bollendorff against the European Parliament

C 226/32               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.8.1999
In support of her claim, the applicant pleads:                          Pleas in law and main arguments
— infringement of Articles 4, 27, 28 and 29 of the Staff                By court decision dated 24 December 1991, the Tribunal de
    Regulations and of Annex III thereto;                               Première Instance (Court of First Instance), Brussels, awarded
                                                                        custody of the daughter of the applicant, an official of the
                                                                        European Parliament, to her former husband and ordered
— infringement of Article 7 of the Protocol (No 2) annexed              the applicant to pay, with effect from 29 January 1990,
    to the Treaty of Amsterdam;                                         8 000 Belgian francs per month by way of contribution to the
                                                                        maintenance of the child, in addition to the amount of the
— breach of the principle of equal treatment and of non-                extended family allowances paid by the European Communi-
    discrimination;                                                     ties.
                                                                        By decision of 15 December 1997, the Juvenile Court of the
— infringement of the second paragraph of Article 24(1) of              Abruzzi awarded custody of the applicant’s daughter to her
    the Merger Treaty;                                                  uncle and aunt with effect from 29 August 1997.
— infringement of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations; and              By letter of 1 April 1998, the European Parliament informed
                                                                        the applicant, inter alia, that payment of the family allowances
— misuse of powers and abuse of procedure.                              to the girl’s uncle and aunt could not commence until the first
                                                                        day of the month following the court decision of 15 December
                                                                        1997, that is to say, 1 January 1998.
                                                                        By its contested decision, the European Parliament refused to
                                                                        pay the family allowances in respect of the girl to her uncle
                                                                        and aunt for the period from 29 August 1997 up to and
                                                                        including 31 December 1997; in its view, the date to be taken
                                                                        into account for the purposes of the payment of family
                                                                        allowances to a third person is the date of delivery of the court
Action brought on 3 May 1999 by Gemma Reggimenti                        decision.
              against the European Parliament
                                                                        The applicant maintains that that decision was adopted in
                                                                        breach of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Annex VII to the Staff
                        (Case T-108/99)                                 Regulations. In accordance with those articles, the point in
                                                                        time which is to be taken into consideration for the purposes
                                                                        of payment of the allowances to a third person is the date on
                        (1999/C 226/57)                                 which the child is effectively entrusted to the care of that
                                                                        person by the court decision, even where the decision itself is
                                                                        not delivered until months or even years later. Moreover, it
                  (Language of the case: French)                        must be borne in mind that decision made in family law cases
                                                                        almost always have retroactive effect.
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of Firs Instance of the European Communities on
3 May 1999 by Gemma Reggimenti, residing in Brussels,
represented by Claudine Junion, lawyer, Brussels, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christine          Action brought on 3 May 1999 by Josée Bollendorff
Nabozny, 3 Rue Mathias Tresch.                                                         against the European Parliament
                                                                                                 (Case T-110/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                 (1999/C 226/58)
— annul the decision adopted by the European Parliament on
    18 June 1998 in so far as it refuses the payment to Mr and                             (Language of the case: French)
    Mrs Reggimenti of family allowances for the period from
    29 August 1997 to 31 December 1997;                                 An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 3
— annul the decision of 1 February 1999 rejecting the                   May 1999 by Josée Bollendorff, residing in Luxembourg,
    complaint as unfounded;                                             represented by Laurent Mosar, of the Luxembourg Bar, with
                                                                        an address for service at his Chambers, 8 Rue Notre-Dame,
— order the European Parliament to comply with the judg-                Luxembourg.
    ment to be delivered, by paying to Mr and Mrs Reggimenti
    family allowances for the period from 29 August 1997 to             The applicant claims that the Court should:
    31 December 1997, plus default interest at the rate                 — annul the decision by which the appointing authority took
    prescribed by law:                                                       the view that the applicant’s absence from 3 September to
                                                                             15 September 1998 was irregular and deducted 68.50
— order the European Parliament to pay the cost.                             working hours from her annual leave entitlement;
 ---pagebreak--- 7.8.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 226/33
— annul the decision by which the appointing authority took              Action brought on 6 May 1999 by Ignacio Samper against
     the view that the applicant’s absence from 13 November                                 the European Parliament
     to 25 November 1998 was irregular and deducted 81
     working hours from her annual leave entitlement;
                                                                                                 (Case T-111/99)
— order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant
     compensation for non material damage in the sum of                                          (1999/C 226/59)
     LUF 100 000 (one hundred thousand Luxembourg francs);
— order the defendant to pay the costs;                                                     (Language of the case: French)
— reserve unto the applicant the right to submit further                 An action against the European Parliament was brought before
     evidence during the course of the written procedure.                the Court of Firs Instance of the European Communities on 6
                                                                         May 1999 by Ignacio Samper, residing in Spain, represented
                                                                         by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                                                                         in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Fort Rheinsheim.
Upon receiving her annual leave statement on 28 January                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
1999, the applicant found that 81 hours had been deducted
from the amount of annual leave to which she is lawfully                 — annul Vacancy Notice No 8675 dated 14 April 1999,
entitled.                                                                    adopted by the President of the European Parliament, Mr
                                                                             José Maria Gil-Robles, and published on 26 April 1999,
                                                                             requiring the submission by no later than 7 May 1999 of
According to the defendant, the applicant’s repeated absences                applications for the post of Head of Division (grade A 3)
cannot be justified by the existence of a pathological condition,            in the Directorate-General for Information and Public
which is, moreover, contested. On several occasion, she did                  Relations, Coordination of External Offices, Publications
not keep appointments with the medical officer and the                       and Public Events, Madrid Information Office, and annul
examining doctor was unable to contact her at her home. As                   the procedure initiated by that vacancy notice for recruit-
the defendant classified this as conduct which was ‘hostile’ to              ment by way of transfer or promotion;
the institution, she was sent a formal warning and her absences
during the periods from 3 September 1998 to 15 September
1998 and from 13 November 1998 to 25 November 1998                       — order the European Parliament to pay all the costs in any
were regarded as irregular.                                                  event, including the costs of the proceedings for interim
                                                                             measures.
The applicant maintains that she was incapable of working
during the above-mentioned periods. As regards the checks                Pleas in law and main arguments
carried out to see whether she was at home, she states that she
was consulting her own doctor at the time; and as to the
alleged absences which made it impossible for her to undergo             The applicant stases that on 21 February 1995 he was
a medical check-up, the applicant maintains that she was                 appointed head of division in grade A 3 and assigned to the
incapable of attending at the institution’s medical service              post of head of the European Parliament’s Information Office
during the periods concerned. Furthermore, she invariably                in Madrid. In its judgment of 18 March 1999 the Court of
produced medical certificates. She claims that the defendant’s           Justice held that the Parliament had committed an error in the
reproaches are unjustified.                                              recruitment procedure and that the decision appointing him
                                                                         to that post should be annulled. The Parliament complied with
                                                                         that judgment by decision of 14 April 1999, by which it
In support of her application, the applicant pleads violation of         annulled the decision appointing the applicant to the post in
the rights of the defence and infringement of Articles 25 and            issue and reinstated him in grade A 5, which had been the
60 of the Staff Regulations. She argues that the deduction by            grade occupied by him at the time of his promotion to that
the defendant of days of leave on account of unjustified                 post. On the same day, a vacancy notice was drawn up in
absences, contrary to the aforementioned provisions of the               relation to the post in issue; this specified that the post was
Staff Regulations, also constitutes a serious breach of adminis-         open only to grade A 4 officials.
trative duty giving rise to liability on the part of the institution.
Furthermore, according to the applicant, the defendant failed
to assist her in tackling the problems which she encountered             The applicant observes that, for the purposes of complying
with a person whose conduct she felt to be threatening. That             with the judgment of the Court of Justice, the Parliament was
attitude amounts to a flagrant breach of Article 24 of the Staff         not in any way obliged to take immediate steps to publish the
Regulations.                                                             vacancy notice in question. By publishing the vacancy notice
                                                                         and laying down conditions and time-limits for the submission
                                                                         of applications which were not such as to enable the applicant
                                                                         to be re-established beforehand in his career, the Parliament
                                                                         has prevented him from applying for the post in issue, whereas,