CELEX: C1997/094/36
Language: en
Date: 1997-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 12 December 1996 by Eberhard Eiselt against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-208/96)

No C 94/16           lENl                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 3 . 97
Action brought on 12 December 1996 by Eberhard Eiselt                largesse whereby study missions have been granted to
   against the Commission of the European Communities                colleagues at the Centre.
                         Case T-208/96)
                          ( 97/C 94/36 )                             The applicant makes three arguments on the merits:
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                     — infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations by
                                                                          refusing to facilitate his professional development,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    — blatant discrimination against him in contrast with the
Instance of the European Communities on 12 December                      treatment accorded to other employees of the Centre,
1996 by Eberhard Eiselt of Ispra (Varese, Italy)                          and to one colleague in particular, and
represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with          the
right of audience before the Court of Cassation of         the
Italian Republic, with an address for service               in       — assignment of tasks in the graphics area and under­
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10          rue            utilization of the applicant's professional abilities in
Mathias Hardt.                                                           the photographic area in which he is a specialist.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision refusing the applicant leave to
     participate in a vocational training course, on grounds         Action brought on 17 December 1996 by Enrico Palermo
     of infringement of the third paragraph of Article 24 of           against the Commission of the European Communities
     the Staff Regulations and of the general principle of
     non-discrimination,                                                                     ( Case T-212/96 )
                                                                                                ( 97/C 94/37)
— declare unlawful the applicant's assignment to tasks
     for which he is not suited and for which he was not                             (Language of the case: Italian)
     originally employed, on the ground that the interests
     of the institution are not thereby served,
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
— order the Commission to pay the applicant damages of               Instance of the European Communities on 17 December
     ECU 10 000 ,                                                    1996 by Enrico Palermo, residing at Rome, a former
                                                                     official of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                     in receipt of an old-age pension, represented by Giuseppe
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            Marchesini, advocate with the right of audience before the
                                                                     Corte di Cassazione of the Italian Republic, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Ernest Arendt, 8—10 rue Mathias Hardt.
The applicant, who is a B-grade official at the Joint                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Research Centre at Ispra, states that he was originally
employed as a photographic specialist, having previously
worked exclusively in that area . When the applicant                 — declare unlawful, first of all, the provisions on which
brought an action before the Court of First Instance, by                 the contested act is based,
reason of circumstances arising in the department to
which he belonged, he was obliged to move to another
department, thereby losing part of his original functions.           — annul the applicant's pension statement for February
That, the applicant maintains, was because the                            1996 in respect of both the recovery of the alleged
Commission preferred to resolve the dispute by means of a                undue payments and of the weighting as applied,
compromise and a promotion. It is in that context that the
refusal to facilitate the applicant's further vocational
training through participation in a specialized                      — declare the Commission to be under an obligation to
photographic course at an institute in Zurich, which is the              take the appropriate measures with regard both to the
subject of this action, arose .                                          payments and the recovery subsequently made,
The applicant argues that the refusal is particularly                — order the Commission to pay interest at 8 % on the
unjustified because it stands in stark contrast with the                 sums due and to pay the costs of the proceedings.