CELEX: C2000/211/51
Language: en
Date: 2000-07-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-143/00: Action brought on 25 May 2000 by Sylvia Haupt against the Commission of the European Communities

C 211/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22.7.2000
— Award the applicant the sum of BEF 1 million, or such                   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
     greater or lesser sum as may be determined in the course
     of the proceedings, in respect of compensation for the               — Annul the Commission decision to appoint another official
     non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result                to post COM/070/99 IV/2 ‘Automobiles, other means of
     of the inappropriate or incomplete information compiled                  transport and related mechanical construction’, being an
     by the defendant in relation to the applicant’s individual               A5 - A4 Head of Unit post;
     file, and the state of uncertainty and anxiety in which he
     was kept regarding his professional future;                          — Annul the Commission decision not to accept the applican-
                                                                              t’s application for post COM/070/99 IV/2 ‘Automobiles,
— Award the applicant the sum of BEF 1 million, or such                       other means of transport and related mechanical construc-
     greater or lesser sum as may be determined in the course                 tion’, being an A5 - A4 Head of Unit post, and all the
     of the proceedings, in respect of compensation for his                   measures preparatory to that decision which themselves
     being rejected for that vacant post and, therefore, the loss             proved to be improper;
     of any chance of promotion;
                                                                          — Award the applicant the sum of BEF 1 million, or such
— Order the defendant to pay the costs.                                       greater or lesser sum as may be determined in the course
                                                                              of the proceedings, in respect of compensation for the
                                                                              non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result
Contentions and principal arguments                                           of the inappropriate or incomplete information compiled
                                                                              by the defendant in relation to the applicant’s individual
                                                                              file, and the state of uncertainty and anxiety in which he
The applicant contests the rejection by the appointing auth-
                                                                              was kept regarding his professional future;
ority of his application for a post of Head of Unit, Grade A 3.
                                                                          — Award the applicant the sum of BEF 1 million, or such
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges infringement:                 greater or lesser sum as may be determined in the course
                                                                              of the proceedings, in respect of compensation for his
— of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and of the obligation                being rejected for that vacant post and, therefore, the loss
     to state reasons;                                                        of any chance of promotion;
— of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;                                 — Order the defendant to pay the costs.
— of the promotion procedure and of the principle of equal
     treatment;                                                           Contentions and principal arguments
— of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                          The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
                                                                          are the same as those relied on in Case T-135/00 Morello v
The applicant also claims that the contested decision is vitiated         Commission.
by a manifest error of assessment and misuse of power.
Action brought on 19 May 2000 by Carmelo Morello                          Action brought on 25 May 2000 by Sylvia Haupt against
    against Commission of the European Communities                               the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-136/00)                                                          (Case T-143/00)
                         (2000/C 211/50)                                                          (2000/C 211/51)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 19 May             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
2000 by Carmelo Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by             European Communities on 25 May 2000 by Sylvia Haupt,
Jacques Sambon and Pierre Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels             residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
Bar.                                                                      Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- 22.7.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 211/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               — order the European Parliament to pay default interest on
                                                                              the secretarial allowances due but not paid, together with
— annul the decision of the selection board in internal                       such sum as the Court shall think fit in respect of the non-
    competition COM/TA/99 rejecting the application submit-                   material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the
    ted by the applicant;                                                     discriminatory conduct of the European Parliament in
                                                                              relation to her;
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          — order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in the present case, who was a category B                   Pleas in law and main arguments
member of the auxiliary staff from December 1996 and May
1997 and subsequently established as an official, contests the
                                                                          The applicant in the present case is challenging what she
refusal to accept her application to take part in internal
                                                                          regards as a reduction in her remuneration resulting from her
competition COM/TA/99 based on tests for the constitution
                                                                          transfer from the Court of Justice to the defendant institution.
of a reserve list of administrators and principal administrators.
                                                                          She claims that the reduction in question has arisen by virtue
                                                                          of the non-payment, in her new post, of the secretarial
The decision rejecting her application is based on the twofold            allowance. She is also challenging the fact that she has not
grounds that (i), contrary to point II(b) of the notice of                been promoted to grade B4 despite having been told by the
competition, she did not enter the service of the Commission              institution from which she moved that such promotion should
by no later than 1 February 1997 and (ii) that her professional           not present any problem, similar cases having previously
experience, gained in category B, could not be regarded as                arisen in the past.
being at a level equivalent to that required for the duties
performed, as described in point I of that notice.
                                                                          The applicant considers that it is more equitable to apply a
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:                           non-restrictive interpretation to the notion of remuneration.
                                                                          In her view, it is not appropriate to apply a literal interpretation
— the existence in the present case of a manifest error of                to the wording of Article 46 of the Staff Regulations, the
    assessment and a misuse of powers;                                    decisive factor being the amount received by the official or
                                                                          agent concerned at the end of the month.
— infringement of Articles 5 and 27 of the Staff Regulations;
    and                                                                   She also pleads infringement of Article 62 of the Staff
                                                                          Regulations and breach of the principle of non-discrimination.
— the illegality of the notice of competition COM/TA/99.
Action brought on 26 May 2000 by Daniela Tirelli against
                    the European Parliament                                       Removal from the register of Case T-75/98 (1)
                         (Case T-144/00)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 211/53)
                         (2000/C 211/52)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          By order of 22 May 2000, the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the European Parliament was brought before              European Communities (single judge: Mr Vesterdorf) ruled that
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                   Case T-75/98 Arnaldo Lucaccioni v Commission of the
on 26 May 2000 by Daniela Tirelli, residing at Dahlem                     European Communities be removed from the register.
(Luxembourg), represented by Gaston Vogel and Ferdinand
Burg, of the Luxembourg Bar.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of September 1999 reducing her
    remuneration;