CELEX: C2000/316/52
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-209/00: Action brought on 9 August 2000 by Frank Lamberts against the European Ombudsman and the European Parliament

4.11.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 316/27
Action brought on 9 August 2000 by Frank Lamberts                        —     failed to organise any real mediation, and did not
against the European Ombudsman and the European                                even attempt to seek an alternative solution with the
                            Parliament                                         Commission, invariably taking refuge behind the prin-
                                                                               ciple of equal treatment;
                          (Case T-209/00)
                                                                         —     accepted as sufficient the Commission’s refusal as a
                         (2000/C 316/52)                                       matter of principle to consider any amicable or alternative
                                                                               resolution; and
                   (Language of the case: French)                        —     should have informed the applicant from the outset, and
                                                                               for as long as the option of resorting to legal proceedings
An action against the European Ombudsman and the European                      remained open to the applicant, that intervention by the
Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of                   Ombudsman would probably come to nothing, and
the European Communities on 9 August 2000 by Frank                             should therefore have advised him to bring the matter
Lamberts, residing at Linkebeek (Belgium), represented by Eric                 before the Court of First Instance of the European
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar.                                                 Communities.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     primarily:
      —     order the defendants jointly and severally or in
            solidum to pay to the applicant the sum of                   Action brought on 11 August 2000 by Aldo Kuijer against
            2 468 787 euros by way of compensation for                                 the Council of the European Union
            material and financial damage and the sum of
            124 000 euros by way of compensation for non-                                         (Case T-211/00)
            material damage, together with interest at the legal
            rate until payment in full;                                                           (2000/C 316/53)
      —     order the defendants jointly and severally or in
            solidum to pay the costs in any event;                                          (Language of the case: English)
—     in the alternative:
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
      —     order the defendants jointly and severally or in             brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
            solidum to pay to the applicant the sum of                   Communities on 11 August 2000 by Aldo Kuijer, represented
            1 234 394 euros by way of compensation for                   by Onno W. Brouwer of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in
            material and financial damage and the sum of                 Amsterdam and Brussels.
            124 000 euros by way of compensation for non-
            material damage, together with interest at the legal         The applicant claims that the Court should:
            rate until payment in full;
                                                                         —     annul the contested decision whereby the Council refuses
      —     order the defendants jointly and severally or in                   to grant access to the documents requested by the
            solidum to pay the costs in any event.                             applicant;
                                                                         —     order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
                                                                               Instance, including costs of eventual intervening parties.
The applicant in the present case was required to attend for
the purposes of the oral test in competition COM/T/A/98; the
letter calling upon him to attend stated that ‘the arrangements          Pleas in law and main arguments
concerning the organisation of the tests are such that it is not
possible to alter the time-schedule indicated’, despite the fact         The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision adopted by
that, according to the applicant, he was suffering from the              the Council on 5 June 2000 following the judgment of the
effects of medical treatment which gave rise to abnormally               Court of First instance of 6 April 2000 in case T-188/98
aggravated physical reactions. In consequence of his exclusion           Kuijer/Council. By this judgment, the Court annulled the
from the list of suitable candidates, he lodged a complaint with         Council’s decision of 28 September 1998, as amended by its
the Ombudsman.                                                           decision of 18 May 1999, which refused to grant access to
                                                                         certain documents requested by the applicant pursuant to
The applicant complains that the Ombudsman has been                      Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December 1993 on public
seriously negligent in the performance of his duties.                    access to Council documents. In order to comply with this
                                                                         judgment, the Council resumed the relevant procedure as from
In his view, the Ombudsman:                                              the time of the applicant’s application and re-examined the
                                                                         request, after which it refused to grant access to the requested
—     failed to fulfil his obligations to provide the applicant          documents and to examine whether partial access should be
      with advice and information;                                       granted to the information contained in these documents.