CELEX: C1998/312/45
Language: en
Date: 1998-10-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 2 August 1998 by Corrado Politi against the European Training Foundation (Case T-124/98)

C 312/18             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.10.98
Secondly, the applicant claims that there has been an              to be a member of the temporary staff, became for the
infrignement of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. The                   first time an official as such, or it relied on Articles 31 and
prerequisites for a prohibition of the Bertelsmann/Kirch/          32 of the Staff Regulations and should state the reasons
Premiere/DF1/DSF concentration were not met, since the             for its refusal to attach any weight whatever to the
concentration would not alter the market position. The             professional experience gained by the applicant over a
concentration in BetaDigital was also wrongly prohibited,          period of nearly 13 years prior to his entry into service as
and the prohibition of the concentration in BetaResearch           an official.
could not be justified. That prohibition was not supported
by the necessary statement of reasons pursuant to                  The applicant advances the following pleas in support of
Article 190 of the EC Treaty.                                      his claims:
Thirdly, the applicant argues that the Commission should           Ð infringement of Articles 4, 7, 31 and 32 of the Staff
have allowed the concentration at least after the                       Regulations, in that, according to Community case-
participants had declared themselves willing to give                    law, Article 32 of the Staff Regulations governs the
undertakings which would allow and encourage                            position of staff members who become Community
competition by third parties in the areas of both                       officials for the first time following a recruitment
technology and programme rights.                                        procedure. By contrast, Article 46 of the Staff
                                                                        Regulations, on the basis of which the contested
                                                                        decision appears to have been adopted, is designed to
                                                                        govern the promotion of Community staff members
                                                                        who already possess the status of official,
Action brought on 2 August 1998 by Claude Bochu                    Ð breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    reasons, as laid down in Article 25 of the Staff
                       (Case T-123/98)                                  Regulations. The need to state such reasons is all the
                                                                        greater in the present case since the recruitment
                        (98/C 312/44)                                   procedure relating to the post in issue was initially
                                                                        open to grade A 4 officials and the defendant thus
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        implicitly accepted that the specific requirements of
                                                                        the post in question justified the recruitment of an
An action against the Commission of the European                        official of that grade.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 2 August 1998
                                                                   Lastly, the applicant asserts that there has been in the
by Claude Bochu, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                   present case a manifest error of assessment, breach of the
Jean-NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and
                                                                   duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                   officials and violation of the principles of good
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire
                                                                   management and sound administration. He states in that
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                   regard that at no time during the procedure did either the
                                                                   Classification Committee or DG IX contact DG XI in
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        order to obtain information concerning the specific needs
                                                                   of the service, with the result that the appointing authority
Ð annul the Commission's decision to appoint the                   possessed no information whatever enabling it to examine
    applicant a probationer official, in so far as that            whether the specific needs of the service required the
    appointment classifies him in grade A 7, step 1,               recruitment of the applicant in a grade other than the
                                                                   lowest grade. Moreover, the appointing authority ignored
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs, including those            the fact that he possessed over seven years' post-university
    incurred by the applicant in defending his interests           experience and the level of responsibility of the duties
    during the pre-litigation stage.                               which had been entrusted to him in the Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, a former grade B 3 member of the
temporary staff who, having passed internal competition
COM/A/16/93, was appointed to category A, contests the             Action brought on 2 August 1998 by Corrado Politi
decision of the appointing authority to classify him in                      against the European Training Foundation
grade A 7, step 1.
                                                                                           (Case T-124/98)
He observes, first, that the contested decision refers in its                               (98/C 312/45)
preamble to Articles 1, 2, 4, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 34 of the
Staff Regulations. Thus it did not officially refer to the                          (Language of the case: French)
third paragraph of Article 46 of the Staff Regulations,
which is nevertheless the only provision applicable to             An action against the European Training Foundation was
officials who, having passed a competition, move up to a           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
higher category. In his view, therefore, either the                Communities on 2 August 1998 by Corrado Politi,
Commission relied on that provision and should state the           residing in Turin (Italy), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
reasons for applying it to the applicant, who, upon ceasing        Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels
 ---pagebreak--- 10.10.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 312/19
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                   Ð annul the decision to deduct from the applicant's
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             salary the sum of BFR 160 750 in respect of
                                                                        transport/mission expenses (FO)',
Ð annul the decision not to renew his contract as a
    member of the temporary staff attached to the                  Ð order the Commission to repay to the applicant the
    European Training Foundation,                                       sums improperly deducted, together with interest at
                                                                        the rate of 8 % per annum from the date on which the
Ð annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                    deduction was made to the date of repayment,
    concerning the drawing-up of the applicant's
    assessment report for the period 1995 to 1997,                 Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                The applicant contests the refusal of the appointing
                                                                   authority to pay the cost of business class air travel for
The applicant, a member of the temporary staff of the              him and his family from Brussels to Los Angeles via
European Training Foundation, contests the refusal to              London, undertaken pursuant to the travel order signed by
renew his contract as a temporary staff member.                    his hierarchical superior, the Director-General of DG XXIII
                                                                   and the Director-General of Personnel and Administration,
In support of his claims, he asserts, first, that there has        as authorising officer. That refusal is based, in particular,
been a manifest error of assessment in the present case. He        on the considerations that, under the fellowship rules',
states in that regard that his assessment report is                which are more restrictive than the provisions of the Staff
incomplete and that it does not therefore reflect all the          Regulations governing missions, travel arrangements must
tasks performed by him during the term of his contract.            be made on the basis of the most economical fare
Similarly, the applicant complains in particular of the lack       available, and that the Commission is to bear the cost of
of appreciation of the considerable amount of work                 the ticket of only one child. According to the defendant,
carried out in the context of the MEDA programme, as               the provisions applicable to ordinary missions cannot be
well as the error resulting from the statement                     applied to fellowship' missions, since specific rules have
unsatisfactory' appearing under the heading relating to           been adopted in the latter regard.
performance of tasks involving the management of
financial and other resources, no task of that kind having         In support of his claims, the applicant maintains, first,
been entrusted to him. It was on the basis of such a               that the special rules applicable to fellowship' missions,
defective assessment, therefore, that the authority                adopted in the form of a simple administrative decision,
empowered to conclude contracts decided not to renew               are illegal, in that they infringe Article 11 et seq. of
the applicant's contract.                                          Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and Article 3 of the
                                                                   Guide des Missions'. He states in the alternative, with
Second, the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to         regard to that point, that the administrative provisions
provide an adequate statement of reasons, making it                relied on by the appointing authority do not require the
impossible for the Community judicature to assess                  official concerned to travel in the cheapest class but
whether it is justified.                                           merely to procure a ticket at the most economical rate for
                                                                   the class in which he is authorised to travel.
                                                                   The applicant further maintains that, according to
                                                                   Community case-law, he was entitled to rely on the
                                                                   apparent legality of the travel order, and could therefore
Action brought on 2 August 1998 by Luc Veron against               legitimately expect that all the provisions of that order
       the Commission of the European Communities                  would be upheld. In those circumstances, he must be
                                                                   regarded as having acquired a legitimate expectation that
                       (Case T-125/98)
                                                                   all the provisions contained in the relevant travel order
                         (98/C 312/46)                             would be lawful. In the alternative, the applicant claims
                                                                   that, even if the travel order was unlawfully drawn up, the
               (Language of the case: French)                      Commission failed to withdraw it within a reasonable
                                                                   time.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Lastly, the applicant also claims that there has been a
Instance of the European Communities on 2 August 1998              manifest error of assessment in the present case, together
by Luc Veron, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-           with breaches, operating to his detriment, of the principle
NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and                of equal treatment and of the right to keep the family
FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address        together as a unit.
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.