CELEX: C1998/209/88
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-04 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 23 April 1998 by Stefan Jung against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-68/98)

C 209/42             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.7.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                   SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
By decision of 12 May 1997 the appointing authority
granted the applicant, at his request, unpaid leave on             The applicant claims that the Court should:
personal grounds (hereinafter unpaid leave') from
1 August to 31 October. By agreement with his immediate
                                                                   Ð rule that the applicant's request that the question of
superior, he took his annual holiday from 1 June to 31 July
                                                                       the possible application of Article 31(2) of the Staff
1997. On 14 July he was the victim of an accident which
                                                                       Regulations be considered with a view to reviewing his
left him unable to work from 14 July to 30 September
                                                                       classification in grade with effect from 5 October
1997. By note of 24 July 1997 the applicant requested
                                                                       1995 is admissible and well-founded,
cancellation of his unpaid leave in view of the fact that he
was on sick leave. The act adversely affecting him is the
decision of the Director-General of Budgets rejecting the
                                                                   Ð annul the Commission's decision implicitly rejecting
request of the applicant, who was on sick leave from
                                                                       the applicant's request that the possible application of
14 July to 30 September 1997, to cancel his unpaid leave.
                                                                       Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations be considered,
The applicant pleads infringement of Article 25 of the             Ð if necessary, annul the decision explicitly rejecting the
Staff Regulations. No grounds whatsoever were given for                applicant's complaint, which the Commission adopted
the decision refusing cancellation of his unpaid leave. The            on 17 December 1997,
applicant was not given any information either directly or
indirectly which would enable him to understand the
reasons for the contested decision. The decision was not           Ð order the defendant to pay all the costs.
communicated to the applicant in writing and without
delay.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The second plea alleges infringement on breach of
                                                                   On 13 January 1997 the applicant, an official in Grade B 5,
Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations. The applicant
                                                                   made a request under Article 90(1) of the Staff
submits that the contested decision is illegal in that his
                                                                   Regulations that his classification in grade be reviewed in
absence from 1 August to 30 September 1997 was
                                                                   the light both of the decision of the Commission of
justified by medical certificates in accordance with
                                                                   7 February 1996 authorising the appointing authority to
Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations. Moreover the
                                                                   appoint a probationary official to the higher grade in a
decision was adopted without the Commission having
                                                                   career bracket and of his exceptional qualifications.
availed itself of its right to require the applicant to
undergo a medical examination pursuant to the second
subparagraph of Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                   The applicant challenges the standard reply from the
                                                                   Commission of 8 January 1998 rejecting the complaint
                                                                   and maintaining that the applicant's request and
The final plea alleges breach of the duty to have regard           complaint were late and that the principles of non-
for the welfare of officials and of the principle of               retroactivity and legal certainty ruled out the
legitimate expectations and a manifest error of assessment.        reconsideration of decisions which had become final.
                                                                   The applicant argues that, by refusing to consider the
                                                                   possible application of Article 31(2) of the Staff
                                                                   Regulations, which would be to the applicant's benefit,
                                                                   the Commission infringed Article 31(2) of the Staff
Action brought on 23 April 1998 by Stefan Jung against             Regulations and of the Commission Decision of 7 February
       the Commission of the European Communities                  1996 amending the criteria applicable to appointment in
                                                                   grade and classification in step adopted on 1 September
                       (Case T-68/98)                              1983 as well as the principle of equal treatment and
                                                                   Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations and, finally, its duty
                        (98/C 209/88)
                                                                   to have regard for the welfare of officials. Moreover, the
                                                                   Commission did not comply with the second paragraph of
                                                                   Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, which requires any
               (Language of the case: French)                      decision adversely affecting an official to state the grounds
                                                                   on which it is based. Finally, the applicant submits that
                                                                   the Commission has committed a manifest abuse of power
An action against the Commission of the European                   and a manifest error of assessment in not reviewing his
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  classification in grade.
Instance of the European Communities on 23 April 1998
by Stefan Jung, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
Nicolas LhoeÈst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for