CELEX: C1998/312/46
Language: en
Date: 1998-10-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 2 August 1998 by Luc Veron against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-125/98)

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.