CELEX: C1996/354/60
Language: en
Date: 1996-11-23 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 19 September 1996 by Howard Batho against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-147/96)

No C 354/30           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23 . 11 . 96
 1996 by Maria Graga de Abreu, residing in Luxembourg,               Action brought on 19 September 1996 by Howard Batho
 represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                 against the Commission of the European Communities
 Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                                    ( Case T-147/96 )
 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
 Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                                                   ( 96/C 354/60 )
                                                                                    (Language of the case: French)
 The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
— annul the decision of the Court of Justice appointing the          Communities was brought before the Court of First
     applicant to the post of typist in Grade C4 in so far as it     Instance of the European Communities on 19 September
     places her in the third step of that grade;                     1996 by Howard Batho, residing at Kraainem ( Belgium ),
                                                                     represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
                                                                     Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                     Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, contests the    — annul the decision of the appointing authority
decision of the appointing authority appointing her as a                 confirming, following re-examination of his
probationary official in Grade C4 , step 3 .                             administrative status, the applicant's classification in
                                                                         grade A7,
Originally recruited by the defendant as a member of the            — order the defendant to pay the costs .
temporary staff in Grade C4, she was promoted on 15 July
1993 to Grade C3 , step 4 . After passing open competition
EUR/C/22 , she was finally made a probationary official by          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
virtue of the contested decision . Thus, although recruited to
the post she already occupied, she was not appointed as a
probationary official in the grade which she held before her        The applicant contests the appointing authority's decision
appointment.                                                        confirming his classification in grade A7 upon his
                                                                    appointment as a probationary official in consequence of
                                                                    the placing of his name on the list of suitable candidates in
The applicant claims, in support of her application, that           open competition COM/A/762 . Prior to that appointment,
Council Regulation ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 3947/92 is             the applicant had worked for the defendant institution in the
unlawful in that Article 8 thereof requires a member of the         respective positions of national expert on secondment,
temporary staff to be appointed as an official in his or her        temporary agent and member of the auxiliary staff. In the
existing grade in order to be entitled to maintain his or her       context of his duties in the latter post, he had been classified ,
former step . In her opinion, that system of appointment:           in view of his professional experience , in grade A5 , step 3 .
                                                                    He had submitted an initial complaint against his
— penalizes members of the temporary staff who have been            appointment to grade A7; that complaint was expressly
    promoted on their merits, as compared with colleagues           rejected by a decision which had become final . In
    of less merit who, for their part, retain their seniority in    consequence of the judgment of the Court of First Instance
                                                                    of 5 October 1995 in Case T-17/95 Alexopoulou v.
    step ,
                                                                    Commission , the applicant applied for revision of the
                                                                    decision classifying him in grade A7 . The rejection of that
— contravenes the principle of career development, since it         application forms the subject-matter of the present
    runs counter to the obligation to encourage, through            dispute .
    promotion, the professional ambitions of the most
    meritorious, best qualified and most experienced
    members of the temporary staff,                                 In support of his claim, he pleads a manifest error of
                                                                    assessment. He points out in that regard that he was
                                                                    recruited as a probationary official in order to perform the
— also contravenes the principle of sound administration            duties attaching to the post occupied by him as a temporary
    since it limits the career prospects of temporary staff in      agent and subsequently as a grade A5 member of the
    the event of their being awarded a promotion, which             auxiliary staff. He considers that, in view of his recruitment
    demotivates the best qualified and most efficient staff         to his post, and having regard to the five years and eleven
    members .
                                                                    months of additional professional experience gained by him ,
                                                                    it is not open to the Commission to assert that the specific
                                                                    needs of the service did not require the recruitment of an
                                                                    official with particular qualifications to perform the duties
                                                                    attaching to the post at issue .
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 11 . 96          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 354/31
The applicant maintains, in any event, that, at the time of his       22 February 1993 , despite the declaration of annulment in
recruitment, he possessed exceptional qualifications                  the abovementioned judgment.
justifying, in accordance with the judgment in Alexopoulou,
recruitment to a higher grade within the career bracket.              In support of his claims, he alleges breach of Articles 26 and
                                                                      35 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 176 and 179 of
                                                                      the Treaty of Rome, and of general principles of law, such as
                                                                      that conferring the authority of res judicata on a final
                                                                      decision against which no appeal lies . In his view, in
                                                                      confirming a decision which had been annulled and by
                                                                      taking no notice of the conditions for complying with the
Action brought on 20 September 1996 by Ernesto Brognieri              judgment and the consequences necessarily entailed, the
  against the Commission of the European Communities                  contested decision did not comply with the operative part of
                         Case T-148/96 )                              the judgment of 8 June 1995 in Case T-583/93 P v. the
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities .
                          ( 96/C 354/61 )
                                                                      In that respect, the applicant considers that the appointing
                (Language of the case: French)                        authority did not take the contested decision in the interests
                                                                      of the service or its organization , but misused its powers in
                                                                      order to inflict a disguised disciplinary penalty on the
An action against the Commission of the European                      applicant.
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 20 September 1996 by Ernesto
Brognieri, residing at Barasso ( Italy ), represented by Eric         His final allegation against the defendant is that his personal
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in         file does not contain all the documents concerning his
Luxembourg at the chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort            administrative status, since material used by the
Rheinsheim .                                                          Commission to support its case has neither been
                                                                      communicated to the applicant nor included in his personal
                                                                      file, which demonstrates the existence of a parallel file .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the decision of 28 November 1995 in which the
    appointing authority informed the applicant that it
    confirmed the decision of 22 February 1993
    withdrawing him from shift-work in the fire service and
    that he could not be reinstated in the fire station , even to     Action brought on 24 September 1996 by Austin Rowan
    work days,                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                              ( Case T-l 50/96
— order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of Lit                                       ( 96/C 354/62 )
    2 000 000 by way of compensation for non-material
    damage , together with interest at the rate prescribed by
    law of 8 % as from the date of the decision to be given                           (Language of the case: French)
    until full payment is made,
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages and             Communities was brought before the Court of First
    interest corresponding to the sums which he ought to              Instance of the European Communities on 24 September
    have    received  as     shift work   allowance    as   from
                                                                      1 996 by Austin Rowan, residing at Overijse , represented by
    28 November 1995 , the date of the contested decision ,          Marc-Albert Lucas , of the Liege Bar, with an address for
    until a valid and lawful decision regularizing his                service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Evelyne Korn,
    administrative situation is adopted, together with               21 Rue Nassau .
    default interest at the rate of 8 % per annum to run from
    22 February 1996 , the date on which the applicant
    lodged his complaint,                                            The applicant claims that the Court should :
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             — annul the Commission 's decision of 25 October 1995
                                                                           inasmuch as it classifies him in Grade B 5 and, in so far as
                                                                           necessary, the Commission 's decision of 19 June 1996
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        rejecting his complaint of 20 February 1996 ,
The applicant, who is employed by the defendant as a                 — order the defendant to pay the costs .
fireman at the Ispra Centre, is the same as in Case T-583/93 ,
which was settled by judgment of 8 June 1995 annulling the
decision of the appointing authority of 22 February 1993 ,            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
by which the applicant had been excluded from shift work in
the fire-fighting service . This action challenges the decision      The applicant, an official in Grade B 4 at the Commission,
of the defendant institution confirming the decision of              challenges the refusal of the appointing authority to review