CELEX: C2005/205/47
Language: en
Date: 2005-08-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-219/05: Action brought on 6 June 2005 by Marta Andreasen against the Commission of the European Communities

20.8.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 205/25
            
         Action brought on 6 June 2005 by Marta Andreasen against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-219/05)
   (2005/C 205/47)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 June 2005 by Marta Andreasen, residing in Barcelona (Spain), represented by Julien Leclère and Jean-Marie Verlaine, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the Commission's decision of 13 October 2004 to remove the applicant from her post (SEC 2004 12 57 FINAL) taken in the case Andreasen Marta v Commission and, accordingly, reinstate the applicant in her post as a Community official with an identical category and grade (namely A2 — AD15) for breach of Articles 6(1) of the ECHR and Articles 6, 9, 10 and 24 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay an indemnity for the financial loss suffered by the applicant, equivalent to the amount of the salary owed from the time the contested decision took effect until the date of judgment to be delivered by the Court of First Instance, namely EUR 12 300 per month lapsed;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the amount of EUR 1 000 000 by way of compensation for the non-pecuniary loss suffered;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, if the Court of First Instance does not uphold the applicant's principal claim, order the Commission of the European Communities to pay an overall amount equivalent to:
               
                           (i)
                        
                        
                           the entire salary of the applicant owing to the age of 65 (official retirement age);
                        
                     
                           (ii)
                        
                        
                           the appurtenant contribution into the applicant's pension fund;
                        
                     
                           (iii)
                        
                        
                           EUR 1 000 000 by way of compensation for the non-pecuniary loss;
                        
                     
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay EUR 12 000 to cover the expenses incurred by the applicant which are not included in costs;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay all costs.
            
         Pleas in law and principal arguments
   The applicant was appointed to the posts of Commission Accounting Officer and Budget Execution Director by decision of 11 December 2001. On 22 May 2002 she was removed from the post of Accounting Officer. She was suspended with effect from 28 August 2002 and disciplinary proceedings were commenced against her. A Disciplinary Board was established in March 2004. Following the recommendations of that board, the applicant was removed from her posts by the contested decision.
   By her first plea, the applicant claims that the proceedings which led to her removal from here posts were null and void because the conditions of impartiality and independence provided for in Article 8 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights were not met in the present case. She argues, first, that the members of the Commission who were behind the accusations made against her were also part of the appointing authority which took the decision to remover her from her posts and, second, that the Disciplinary Board was composed entirely of Commission officials, with exception of one person.
   By her second plea, the applicant argues, first, that the decision to remover her from her posts is a second disciplinary measure taken against her, on the basis of the same facts which led to her suspension and, accordingly, was imposed in breach of Article 9 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations. She argues, as part of the same plea, that the time-limits provided for in Article 24 of the same annex have been exceeded. According to the applicant, that tardiness is also a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicant also claims that the contested decision did not contain a statement of reasons and that the sanction imposed on her was disproportionate.