CELEX: C1996/233/23
Language: en
Date: 1996-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 22 May 1996 by W against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-78/96)

No C 233/ 12          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10 . 8 . 96
Action brought on 17 May 1996 by Georges Tzoanos                      responsibility, in that he was involved only in the selection
   against the Commission of the European Communities                 and technical control of subsidized projects and not in
                                                                      financial control . The Commission's decision was therefore
                        ( Case T-74/96
                                                                      totally irrelevant both in fact and in law and infringed
                          ( 96/C 233 /22 )
                                                                      Article 21 of the Staff Regulations , which required that the
                                                                      applicant should be held responsible only for tasks entrusted
                                                                      to him .
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Finally, the applicant considers that the disciplinary
                                                                      procedure was conducted in such a way that he was not able
An action against the Commission of the European                      properly to defend himself, particularly by reason of the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     manner in which the hearings were conducted , the
Instance of the European Communities on 17 May 1996 by                documents collated and the questions put, but also by
Georges Tzoanos, residing in Brussels , represented by Eric           reason of the very personality of the officials participating at
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in         various stages of the disciplinary proceedings , especially the
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du                 hearings , and by reason of the existence of parallel criminal
Fort Rheinsheim .                                                     proceedings . Moreover, the multitude of obvious
                                                                      inaccuracies which riddled these proceedings led the
                                                                      Commission to hold against him a series of alleged
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          irregularities that did not in fact exist, and to impose an
                                                                      obviously disproportionate sanction . In the light of the
                                                                      above , the applicant pleads infringement of Articles 86 and
— annul the decision of 22 June 1995 , taking effect on               88 of, and Annex IX to , the Staff Regulations, disregard of
     1 August 1995 and notified on 23 June 1995 , whereby             defence rights and the principle of proportionality, excess of
     the Commission decided to impose on the applicant the            authority and misuse of powers .
     disciplinary sanction in Article 86 ( 2 ) ( f) of the Staff
     Regulations, namely removal from his post without
     reduction or withdrawal of entitlement to retirement
     pension ,
— annul the express rejection of 19 February 1996 of the
     applicant's complaint against the contested decision             Action brought on 22 May 1996 by W against the
     lodged on 21 September 1995 under No R780/95 ,                            Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                              Case T-78/96 )
                                                                                              ( 96/C 233/23 )
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                                      (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant argues, first, that, contrary to what is stated in      Communities was brought before the Court of First
the reasoning for the contested decision , he has not in any          Instance of the European Communities on 22 May 199 6 by
way compromised his independence or integrity and that,              W, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi ,
furthermore, he was not in a position in which he would be            of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
likely to make applications or declarations to the                    Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue
                                                                      Glesener .
Commission , or supply it with information, preliminary or
otherwise . He maintains that the Commission's allegations
against him are either not established, or are established to        The applicant claims that the Court should :
such an insignificant extent that the requirements of the
Staff Regulations are not fulfilled , and adds that he has
committed no fault to justify either the contested decision or       — annul the decision of 20 July 1995 compulsorily
its severity . In his opinion , the contested decision was                ' reassigning' her to another post and , in so far as
adopted on the basis of an incorrect assessment of the facts ,            necessary, annul the decision rejecting her complaint,
thereby infringing Articles 12 , 13 and 14 of the Staff                   taken on 22 February 1996 and notified on 28 February
                                                                          1996 ,
Regulations of officials .
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
Concerning the allegations of administrative irregularities
and budgetary and financial mismanagement during the
exercise of his duties as head of the 'Tourism ' unit, the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
applicant maintains that the Commission imputes
responsibility to him in respect of duties that were not             The applicant, an official assigned to the Publications
entrusted to him and were not within his area of                     Office , challenges the decision of the appointing authority
 ---pagebreak--- 10 . 8 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 233/ 13
compulsorily 'reassigning' her from her post in OP/DIR,               The applicant claims that the Court should :
External Staff Administration , to post OP/4 , Group A
' Publications '.
                                                                      — declare , in accordance with Article 175 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                          that the Commission has infringed Article 30 of
First, the post she had previously occupied became vacant                 Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 and the second
following her departure and, secondly, the new post had                   subparagraph of Article 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty, by
been vacant before the so-called ' reassignment'. She could               failing to take the steps necessary to enable the applicant
not therefore have been transferred with her post, so that the            to overcome the following difficulties :
contested measure was incorrectly described by the
defendant as a reassignment.                                              — on account of the crisis in Somalia , it is impossible to
                                                                               procure sufficient quantities of Somalian bananas to
The applicant points out in particular the manner in which                     meet traditional marketing needs , and
the contested decision prejudices her career prospects
inasmuch as , first, the duties attaching to the post to which            — by virtue of the restrictions imposed by Council
she has been reassigned are clearly beneath her abilities,                     Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 , it is impossible to use
qualifications and duties previously performed and ,                           bananas from other sources,
secondly, the reassignment in question appears to be a
disguised disciplinary measure imposed on the applicant on            — declare that the Commission is under a duty to take
account of the allegedly bad relations with her immediate                 adequate measures for the future ,
superior.
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay compensation , pursuant to
The applicant claims in this respect that Articles 4 and 29 of
                                                                          Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of
the Staff Regulations have been infinged inasmuch as any
                                                                          the EC Treaty, for the damage suffered by the applicant
transfer properly so called must observe the formalities                  as a result of the Commission's failure to act,
provided for in those two provisions which , as stated above ,
was not the case here .
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
Secondly, the applicant complains that the appointing                     applicant in the present proceedings .
authority disregarded Article 7 of the Staff Regulations
inasmuch as the ' reassignment', which is the subject of the
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
dispute, was effected neither in the interest of the service nor
in observance of equivalence between posts . The quality of
the work of the applicant has never been criticized . On the          Camar, the only Community operator which traditionally
contrary, her sense of responsibility and initiative , her            trades in Somalian bananas , complains that the Commission
efficiency and her competence have been acknowledged in               failed to adopt the measures provided for under Article 30 of
her staff reports .                                                   Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 in order to enable it to
                                                                      overcome the difficulties in obtaining supplies of bananas as
                                                                      a result of the critical situation in Somalia and the
Finally, the applicant claims that the duty to have regard for
her welfare as an official has been breached and that there           restrictions imposed by Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 .
has been a misuse of powers .
                                                                      Camar emphasizes that before the common organization of
                                                                      the market in bananas took effect, it was able to offset a
                                                                      shortfall in Somalian bananas with bananas from other ACP
                                                                      countries or from third countries . Thereafter, however, that
                                                                      was no longer possible , because bananas from both ACP
                                                                      states and non-ACP third countries are subject to quotas
Action brought on 24 May 1996 by Camar SRL against the                and, in the latter case, without reference quantities it is
          Commission of the European Communities                      impossible to obtain licences giving access to the quota .
                         ( Case T-79/96
                           ( 96/C 233/24 )                            According to Camar, although the lack of Somalian bananas
                                                                      on account of the war and the subsequent continuing crisis is
                                                                      outside the Commission's control , that institution is
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                     nevertheless accountable for not having taken cognizance of
                                                                      the fact that Community supplies were depleted by the
An action against the Commission of the European                      60 000 tonnes designated in the Annex to Regulation ( EEC )
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                    No 404/93 as traditional quantities , which the Council took
 Instance of the European Communities on 24 May 1996 by               into account when fixing the tariff quota for third-country
 Camar SRL, a company established in Florence ( Italy ),              and non-traditional ACP bananas, and for not having
 represented by Wilma Viscardini Donà , and assisted by Dr            adopted appropriate measures to compensate for that
                                                                      shortfall .
 Mariano Paolin and Dr . Simonetta Donà , all of the Padua
 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt,                  According to Camar, it is clear from the various recitals in
 BP 39 .                                                              the preambles to the regulations adopted by the