CELEX: C1996/370/36
Language: en
Date: 1996-12-07 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 17 October 1996 by Gundolf Bosetti against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-161/96)

7 . 12 . 96            EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 370 / 17
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    interpreted by case-law. He maintains that the Commission
                                                                       has not accorded the union which he represents all the
The applicant states, with regard to the admissibility of his          rights to which it is entitled, inasmuch as the practical effect
claim, that it is directed not against an act of the appointing        of the contested decision results is to prohibit it from taking
authority but against a failure to act . That failure to act           part in meetings organized between the institutions and
consists in the fact that, because the weightings have still           trade unions and staff associations, to refuse it the
not been definitively fixed, the applicant's pension for the           necessary means for properly carrying out its tasks, to deny
period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1994 has not yet been               it the right to disseminate information and to prohibit it
finally determined .                                                   from carrying on trade union activities during working
                                                                       hours on the Commission's premises .
Moreover, the action is also well founded since there
                                                                       The applicant also complains that the Commission has not
appears to be no reason why the principles applying to
                                                                       complied with the framework agreement and that it has
officials residing in the Federal Republic of Germany                  distorted the aims thereof.
should differ from those applying in respect of all other
countries, or why the appointing authority should refrain              Lastly, he pleads infringement of the obligation to provide a
from applying the principles clearly obtaining since June              statement of reasons arising from the second paragraph of
1994 to the preceding period as well .                                 Article 25 and Article 90 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations .
Action brought on 17 October 1996 by Gundolf Bosetti                   Action brought on 18 October 1996 by Sandro Forcheri
    against the Commission of the European Communities                    against the Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-161 /96 )                                                    ( Case T-l 62/96 )
                           ( 96/C 370/36 )                                                       ( 96/C 370/37)
                 (Language of the case: French)                                         (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                       An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 October 1996                Instance of the European Communities on 18 October 1996
by Gundolf Bosetti , residing in Luxembourg, represented by            by Sandro Forcheri , residing in Brussels, represented by
Gilles Bouneou, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address                 Marc-Albert Lucas of the Liege Bar, with an address for
for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 15 Avenue du                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn ,
                                                                       21 Rue de Nassau .
Bois .
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul or declare to be unlawful the failure of the
— annul the decision of the Commission of 31 October                        Commission to second the Head of Division B/4 of
     1995 refusing to admit the independent trade union                     DG XXI to SAMCOMM on the date that he took up
     'Action et Defense — Luxembourg' to the framework                      his duties or at the very least with effect from
     agreement of 20 September 1974 concerning relations                    29 October 1992,
     between the Commission and trade unions and staff
     associations ,                                                    — annul the Commission 's decision of 12 December 1995
                                                                            refusing the applicant's request for payment of the
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.                                differential allowance provided for by Article 7 ( 2 ) of
                                                                            the Staff Regulations,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — annul the Commission's decision of 24 July 1996
                                                                            granting his complaint in part, in that it fails to accept
The applicant, deputy general secretary of the trade union                  that he has, since 29 October 1992 , been performing
'Action et Defense — Luxembourg', states that on                            temporarily the duties of Head of Division XXI B/4 and
9 October 1995 that organization applied to be admitted to                  in that it therefore does not grant him the differential
the framework agreement of 20 September 1974                                allowance from 30 January 1993 and without
concerning relations between the Commission and trade                       limitation in time,
unions and staff associations . On 31 October 1995 the
competent Member of the Commission rejected the                        — order the Commission to pay him that differential
application on the ground that, as matters then stood, he                   allowance, together with interest for late payment at the
was not able to assess the extent to which the organization                 rate of 8% per annum from the date each month on
in question was a representative body.                                      which that allowance should have been paid until full
                                                                            payment,
The applicant considers that that decision disregarded
Articles 9 and 24a of the Staff Regulations of officials, as           — order the Commission to pay the costs .