CELEX: C1996/180/91
Language: en
Date: 1996-06-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 30 April 1996 by José Francisco Meoro Avilés against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-61/96)

No C 180/38           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 6 . 96
— order that interest be paid on all the above sums at the          Action brought on 25 April 1996 by Jean-Louis Burban
    rate of 8 % from the date of the application to the time of                   against the European Parliament
     payment ,                                                                             ( Case T-59/96 )
                                                                                             ( 96/C 180/90 )
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                                   (Language of the case: Frencb)
Contentions       and   principal  arguments      adduced     in
support:                                                            An action against the European Parliament was brought
                                                                    before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                    Communities on 25 April 1996 by Jean-Louis Burban,
The applicant, an official in the Commission' scientific and        residing in Paris, represented by Jean-Pierre Spitzer, of the
technical services at the Joint Research Centre, Ispra ,            Paris Bar, with an adress for service at the Chambers of
maintains that it is unlawful to refuse to pay him the              Aloyse May , 31 Grand-Rue .
installation allowance and daily subsistence allowance on
his return from a period of external service with the
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna . The contested          The applicant claims that the Court should:
decision is based on the view that the applicant would              — award compensation in the sum of ECU 100 000 for the
neither encounter particular difficulties in resettling into the        material damage, and ECU 100 000 for the
environment which he had earlier left or nor need to effect
                                                                        non-material damage, suffered by the applicant,
removals again, having returned to his own dwelling in
Italy.                                                              — order the defendant to pay all of the costs .
According to the applicant, the provisions of the Staff             Pleas in law and main arguments:
Regulations concerning the installation allowance relate
only to the objective fact that the person concerned is             The applicant, a grade A 4 official of the European
obliged to change his place of residence in order to comply         Parliament, seeks reparation for the material and
with Article 20 of the Staff Regulations . The latter provision     non-material damage suffered by him by reason of the delay
lays down no further requirement and takes account of no            in drawing up his staff reports for the periods 1991 — 1992
other factor .                                                      and 1993—1994 .
                                                                    He considers that the defendant has not only breached the
It is true that the case-law has clarified the scope of the         principle whereby staff reports are to be drawn up on a
provisions of the Staff Regulations, but it has done so in          regular and periodic basis, but has also failed to adopt any
factual circumstances where legal preconditions were not            measure in lieu capable of remedying the absence of such
fulfilled ( failure to move house or be accompanied by              reports at the time when consideration of the comparative
members of one's family, transfers at one's own request and         merits of internal candidates took place .
for personal reasons, and so on ) or else in relation to
conduct intended to evade legal provisions . That case-law          The applicant draws attention in that regard to the
has nothing to do with this case, where the applicant and his       questionable nature of the only report, relating to 1989 , on
family both duly moved to another State, a residence was            the basis of which the appointing authority examined all of
rented in Austria and there was a compulsory transfer back          the applicant's applications from 1990 onwards . He
to Italy .                                                          contends that, in drawing up that report, the former head of
                                                                    the defendant's Information Office for France misused his
As regards the return to the applicant's dwelling in Italy,         powers as reporting officer, with a view to being replaced in
which involved a genuine financial sacrifice for the applicant      his post as Assistant Director not by the applicant, his
since — both because of the certain date of his return and the      natural successor, but by a personal friend outside the
legal difficulties of regaining possession of the dwelling in       European Parliament, by means of an external
Italy after renting it out — he had to bear throughout the          competition .
period in question the financial burdens and operating
expenses of two residences .
As regards the refusal to pay him the daily subsistence
allowance, the applicant maintains that the payment of such         Action brought on 30 April 1996 by José Francisco Meoro
allowances is based on the very circumstances described                    Avilés against Commission of the European
above, in other words a change of residence by an official in                                 Communities
order to comply with his obligations under Article 20 of the
                                                                                           ( Case T-61 /96 )
Staff Regulations . The only difference from the 'case of the
installation allowance lies in the fact that the daily                                       ( 96/C 180/91 )
subsistence allowance is paid until removal or for a
maximum period of six months . The difference is thus only a                      (Language of the case: Spanisb)
question of time .
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance on 30 April 1996 by José Francisco Meoro Avilés,
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 6 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 180/39
residing in Alcantarilla ( Murcia, Spain ), represented by            in these proceedings lay down as a precondition for
Ramôn Marés Salvador, of the Madrid Bar, with an address              admission possession of, at least, a degree of licenciado.
for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Alain Lorang,            That implies that 'technical engineers' will not be admitted .
51 Rue Albert 1er .                                                   The same does not apply to persons who hold equivalent
                                                                      qualifications in other Community countries, such as the
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom or
                                                                      Denmark (Fachhochschulabschluss, University degree or
— declare void notices of open competition Nos                        equivalent, Kandidateksamen), who are admitted to the
     EUR/LA/97 and EUR/LA/98 ( 96/C 62 A/01 ) for the                 abovementioned A and LA competitions.
     constitution of reserve lists for the recruitment of
     translators ( LA 7/LA 6 ) and assistant translators ( LA 8 )
     published in the Official Journal of the European                The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:
      Communities on 1 March 1996 ,
                                                                      — the text of the contested competition notices
— require the Commission of the European Communities                     misinterprets and unjustifiably restricts, as regards
      to amend, in accordance with Article 176 of the Treaty             Spanish nationals, the provisions of Article 5 of the Staff
      establishing the EEC , the ' Guide for candidates taking           Regulations solely in order to discriminate against
      part in interinstitutional competitions or in open                 'technical engineers' who have obtained their
      competitions organized by the Commission' published                qualifications in Spain, depriving them of access to A
      regularly in the Official Journal of the European                  and LA competitions and, consequently, to the
      Communities and any other publication concerning                   corresponding posts . The Commission is thus guilty of
      access to the Community civil service so as to include,             manifest abuse of procedure and misuse of powers. Also,
      unambiguously,      ' Ingenieria    técnica'    ( technical         in view of the fact that the competition notices are in
      engineering ) in the table entitled ' Guide to national             breach of Article 5 of the Staff Regulations and Article 7
      educational qualifications required as a minimum                    of the EC Treaty, there is also a breach of the principles
      condition of admission to open competitions' and                    of legal certainty and protection of legitimate
      specifically in the section dealing with Spanish                    expectations and of the right of access to the European
      candidates for 'A' and ' LA' competitions,                          Civil Service under the conditions laid down by the Staff
                                                                          Regulations,
— order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs .
                                                                      — the contested notices also contravene the principle of
                                                                          equal treatment since they involve discrimination on
 Contentions      and   principal    arguments     adduced     in         grounds of nationality without any objective
support:
                                                                          justification,
The applicant explains that in Spain there are two types of
full university education leading to a formal end-of-course           — the Commission's conduct is also in breach of Directive
 qualification : the course of education followed by aspiring             89/48/EEC on recognition of higher-education diplomas
graduates and the equivalent thereof ( engineers and                      awarded on completion of professional education and
 architects ), which are of a maximum duration of                         training of at least three years' duration, which applies
 four-and-a-half years to six years, and that followed by                 by analogy to the European civil service,
 aspiring diploma-holders and the equivalent thereof
 ( ingenieros técnicos technical engineers and arquitéctos             — the requirement of a licenciatura ( degree ) for access to
 técnicos technical architects ) which is of a maximum                    the Community civil service of Spanish candidates is
 duration of approximately three-and-a-half years . Both                  neither necessary nor appropriate to the objective of
 graduates and diploma-holders complete a full course of                  Article 5 of the Staff Regulations, which is to employ in
 university study leading to a qualification officially                   the Community civil service persons with university
 recognized by the Spanish State . The notices of open                    education . There is thus a clear breach of the principle of
 competition, Nos EUR/LA/97 and EUR/LA/98 , challenged                    proportionality .