CELEX: C2000/285/33
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-197/00: Action brought on 26 July 2000 by Hubert Onidi against the Commission of the European Communities

C 285/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.10.2000
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:             The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul the decision contained in document No 109172                  —      annul the Commission’s decision of 29 July 1999
      of 17 February 2000, notified to him by the President of                   imposing on him the penalty provided for in
      the European Parliament, rejecting his complaint against                   Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations of officials, namely
      the rejection of his request for definitive termination of                 removal from post with a one-third reduction in his
      service;                                                                   retirement pension entitlement;
—     Order the defendant to pay the applicant total compen-              —      annul the Commission’s decision refusing to re-open the
      sation of PTE 50 000 000 (PTE 25 000 000 for impair-                       disciplinary procedure;
      ment of his health and PTE 25 000 000 for damage to
      his good name and professional reputation);                         —      order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant, a Commission official, was assigned to the
                                                                          European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO). The Com-
The applicant’s action is directed against the decision contained         mission alleges that he committed serious administrative
in document No 109172 of 17 February 2000, notified to                    irregularities and that he is guilty of serious misconduct in
him by the President of the European Parliament, rejecting his            respect of budgetary and financial management. Following a
complaint against the rejection of his request for definitive             disciplinary procedure, the Commission adopted the contested
termination of service.                                                   decision imposing on the applicant the penalty of removal
                                                                          from post with a one-third reduction in his retirement pension
                                                                          entitlement.
The applicant claims that the contested measure:
                                                                          In support of his application, the applicant advances the
—     first, infringes the principle of sound administration by
                                                                          following pleas:
      which the Community institutions are bound;
                                                                          —      infringement of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as
—     second, infringes the principle of non-discrimination;                     the appointing authority did not observe the time-limit
                                                                                 laid down by the first paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX
—     third, contains an inconsistent statement of the reasons                   to the Staff Regulations of Officials, two members of the
      on which it is based, contrary to the requirements of                      appointing authority failed to show the objectivity and
      Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of the European                        impartiality required and the applicant was unable to put
      Communities.                                                               forward at the appropriate time the grounds of his
                                                                                 defence;
                                                                          —      a manifest error of assessment, inasmuch as the Com-
                                                                                 mission was not legally entitled to level a charge against
                                                                                 the applicant whilst at the same time taking the view that
                                                                                 the former director of ECHO, who was the applicant’s
                                                                                 direct hierarchical superior, had not failed in any way to
                                                                                 fulfil his obligations under the Staff Regulations;
Action brought on 26 July 2000 by Hubert Onidi against
       the Commission of the European Communities                         —      violation of the obligation to apply the principle of
                                                                                 proportionality, inasmuch as the appointing authority
                         (Case T-197/00)                                         failed to take into consideration the exonerating evidence
                                                                                 submitted by the applicant.
                         (2000/C 285/33)
                                                                          In addition, the applicant contests the Commission’s decision
                                                                          refusing to re-open the disciplinary procedure against him. He
                                                                          maintains that the decision of the College of Commissioners
                    (Language of the case: French)                        finding that the former director of ECHO had not failed to
                                                                          fulfil his obligations under the Staff Regulations constitutes a
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 material new fact justifying his request for the matter to be
                                                                          resubmitted to the Disciplinary Board.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 July 2000 by Hubert Onidi,
residing at Roquefort-les-Pins (France), represented by Jean-
Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.