CELEX: C1998/327/55
Language: en
Date: 1998-10-24 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 12 August 1998 by Francis Panichelli against the European Parliament (Case T-131/98)

24.10.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 327/31
Action brought on 10 August 1998 by Francis Panichelli              According to the applicant, the first ground for complaint
               against the European Parliament                      is that by not promoting him to Grade A 4, the defendant
                                                                    manifestly breached the conditions of his recruitment, and
                       (Case T-130/98)                              the rules it imposed on itself.
                         (98/C 327/54)
                                                                    The second ground is that the appointing authority failed
                (Language of the case: French)                      to draw up the applicant's staff reports, in breach of the
                                                                    aforementioned rules and principles, thus preventing the
                                                                    committee responsible for deciding on promotions from
                                                                    carrying out an objective examination of the applicant's
An action against the European Parliament was brought               file and ensuring a genuine comparison of the merits of
before the Court of First Instance of the European                  each of the members of staff concerned, thus depriving the
Communities on 10 August 1998 by Francis Panichelli,                applicant of numerous career opportunities within the
residing in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by               institution.
Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
                                                                    The applicant concludes that he has suffered considerable
                                                                    material loss as a result of those procedural flaws since,
                                                                    on the one hand, his remuneration is lower than what he
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         could reasonably have anticipated and, on the other, he is
                                                                    denied any further promotion from the new grade and
                                                                    step which he could have held. Ex aequo et bono, that
                                                                    loss, both material and non-material, is reasonably
Ð annul the implicit decision rejecting the request                 estimated at BEF 250 000.
    submitted by him on 11 July 1997, as a result of
    which he was not classified in Grade A 4 with effect
    from 1 January 1993, was not granted the promotion
    he requested and his staff reports for the periods
    1993Ð1994 and 1995Ð1996 were not drawn up;
                                                                    Action brought on 12 August 1998 by Francis Panichelli
Ð annul the implicit rejection on 26 January 1998 of the
                                                                                   against the European Parliament
    complaint he submitted against the implicit decision
    rejecting his requests of 11 July 1997;                                                 (Case T-131/98)
                                                                                             (98/C 327/55)
Ð order the defendant to pay him           the sum of BEF
    250 000, subject to amendment in       the course of the
    proceedings, by way of damages         in respect of his                        (Language of the case: French)
    aggregate material and non-material    loss;
                                                                    An action against the European Parliament was brought
Ð order the defendant to pay all the costs in any event.            before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                    Communities on 12 August 1998 by Francis Panichelli,
                                                                    residing in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by
                                                                    Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
                                                                    Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
The applicant, a member of the temporary staff in Grade
A 5, had requested the reclassification of his post as Grade        The applicant claims that the Court should:
A 4 with effect from 1 January 1993 and, in the event of
refusal, written notification of the reasons why the
undertaking to that effect given by the Party of European
Socialists at the time of his recruitment was not respected         Ð annul the decision of the Bureau of the Group of
and, in the alternative, re-examination of the list of                   the Party of European Socialists terminating the
proposed promotions for 1997, which was drawn up in                      applicant's contract as a member of the temporary
breach of Article 6.1.2 of the internal rules of the party's             staff with effect from the evening of 2 October 1998,
secretariat, inter alia because no staff reports were drawn              communicated to the applicant on 2 July 1998 by a
up for the periods 1993Ð1994 and 1995Ð1996.                              letter from the President of the Party of European
 ---pagebreak--- C 327/32               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.10.98
     Socialists, Pauline Green, dated 30 June 1998 and sent        Action brought on 20 August 1998 by Elaine Spence
     by registered post on 1 July 1998;                               against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                          (Case T-135/98)
Ð annul the future decision rejecting the complaint                                        (98/C 327/56)
     against that decision submitted by the applicant on
     10 August 1998, in so far as that complaint is not
     allowed;                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
Ð order the defendant to pay all the costs in any event.           An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 20 August
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                1998 by Elaine Spence, residing in Wezembeek-Oppem
                                                                   (Belgium), represented by Georges Vandersanden and
                                                                   Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                                                                   in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
The applicant, a member of the temporary staff in Grade
                                                                   30 Rue de Cessange.
A 5, has already lodged an application (1) challenging the
Parliament's implicit decision of 11 July 1997 not to
promote him to Grade A 4 and its failure to draw up his
staff reports for the periods 1993Ð1994 and 1995Ð1996.             The applicant claims that the Court should:
By the present application, the applicant is challenging the       Ð annul the decision adopted by the appointing
decision of the Bureau of the Group of the Party of                    authority on 17 October 1997, notified to the
European Socialists of 30 June 1998, terminating his                   applicant on 23 October 1997, withdrawing a decision
contract as a member of the temporary staff with effect                of 7 August 1997 transferring the applicant and her
from the evening of 2 October 1998.                                    post to Directorate-General I Ð External Relations:
                                                                       Commercial policy and relations with North America,
                                                                       the Far East, Australia and New Zealand with effect
According to the applicant, the decision to dismiss him                from 1 September 1997 and, in so far as is necessary,
was made without duly informing the Staff Committee in                 annul the implicit decision rejecting the complaint
advance; furthermore, no reasons were given for the                    registered on 22 January 1998;
decision, which was based on an inadequate statement of
reasons. He alleges infringement of the rules in Articles 24a
and 25(2) of the Staff Regulations, which apply to                 Ð award damages provisionally set at BEF 300 000;
members of the temporary staff by virtue of Article 11(1)
of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants
(hereinafter the CEOS'), and Article 47(2)(a) of the CEOS
and Article 11 of the internal rules on the recruitment of         Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
officials and other servants adopted on 15 March 1989 by
the Bureau of the European Parliament. Furthermore, he
claims infringement of Article 11 of the European                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Convention on Human Rights and general principles of
law such as those requiring the equal treatment of
officials, respect for the rights of the defence, the
performance in good faith of agreements and the                    The applicant, an official in DG XIV of the defendant
protection of legitimate expectations, as well as the              institution, challenges the withdrawal on 17 October 1997
principle that every act of the administration must be             of the appointing authority's decision of 7 August 1997 to
based on a relevant statement of reasons.                          transfer her to DG I. That decision was based on a
                                                                   deterioration in the applicant's working conditions, which
                                                                   arose following the appointment of her last immediate
                                                                   superior, who she accused of systematic mobbing'.
Second, the applicant alleges that the appointing authority
committed a misuse of powers. In his assertion, the
contested decision dismissing him is unlawful in so far as
it is based on considerations unrelated to his aptitude and        In support of her assertions, the applicant alleges, first of
professional performance.                                          all, infringement of the principle of the protection of
                                                                   legitimate expectations. It is submitted in that respect that
                                                                   the contested decision annuls a previous decision with
(1) Case T-130/98.                                                 effect from 1 September 1997, which in practice
                                                                   constitutes a retroactive withdrawal in disregard of the
                                                                   extremely strict requirements imposed by Community
                                                                   case-law. The applicant stresses in that respect that the