CELEX: C1997/331/45
Language: en
Date: 1997-11-01 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 19 August 1997 by Luc Verheyden against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-240/97)

C 331 /22          1 EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    1 . 11 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    — annul the defendant's decisions :
The applicant claims that there has been an infringement
of Article 46 of the Staff Regulations, the purpose of                  — of 31 October 1996, consisting of a note prepared
which is to ensure the greatest possible continuity in the                   by J. P. Contzen, Director-General of the Joint
development of an official 's career. In his submission, the                 Research Centre, Ispra, refusing, first, to allow the
remuneration for Grade B 5 , Step 4 is lower than that for                   applicant to apply to the appeal assessor on the
Grade C 3 , Step 8 . He will therefore continue to be                        ground that the matter had been finally concluded
remunerated as an official of Grade C 3 , Step 8 until                       by the decision of 30 November 1995 awarding
promoted to Grade B 4, which does not represent                              the applicant the sum of BFR 90 000 in respect of
continuity in the development of his remuneration.                           non-material damage resulting from the absence
                                                                             and/or delay in the drawing up of his staff reports
                                                                             and, second, refusing the promotion of the
                                                                             applicant to grade A4 sought in point 2 of his
Moreover, the applicant does not enjoy financial                             request of 28 August 1996,
advantages, like officials who are not in the last step in
their grade .
                                                                        — implicitly rejecting the applicant's complaint
                                                                             against those refusals, which was submitted on
                                                                             20 January 1997 and registered on that date,
When the applicant took up his duties in 1982, in Grade
C 4, he was awarded additional seniority of 48 months in
accordance with Article 42 of the Staff Regulations. An             — order the defendant to pay compensation of BFR
                                                                         1 000 000 for the combined material and non-material
official appointed at the same time as the applicant with
additional seniority of 24 months, who was promoted at                  damage suffered by him, the said sum to be increased
the same time and who had passed the same competition,                  or decreased as appropriate during the course of the
had been at Grade C 3, Step 7 before his appointment to                 proceedings, together with compensatory interest
Grade B. When the two were both appointed to Grade                      running from 28 August 1996 , the date of the
B 5 , that official received the same remuneration as the               applicant's request,
applicant, even though the latter had 24 months more
seniority.
                                                                    — in any event, order the Commission to pay all the
                                                                        costs .
Finally, the applicant requests his reclassification in the         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
light of the 'Alexopoulou' judgment.
                                                                    The applicant pleads, first, infringement of the Staff
                                                                    Regulations, in particular Articles 9 ( 5 ), 26 and 43
                                                                    thereof, and breach of general principles of law, including
                                                                    in particular the principle of equality, which requires the
                                                                    administration to have regard for the welfare and interests
                                                                    of officials, and the principle that all administrative
                                                                    decisions   must   be   based  on  a   lawful   and    relevant
Action brought on 19 August 1997 by Luc Verheyden
   against the Commission of the European Communities               statement of reasons. According to the applicant, the
                                                                    appointing authority was wrong to rely on the previous
                       ( Case T-240/97 )                            award of compensation for the absence and/or delay in the
                                                                    drawing up of a staff report as a ground for refusing to
                         ( 97/C 331/45 )                            allow the applicant to apply for revision of his staff report
                                                                    on appeal ( such revision being concerned with the
                                                                    contents of that report, which was drawn up after
                                                                    adoption of the decision awarding compensation), and in
               (Language of the case: French)                       so doing it infringed the rules and principles relied on in
                                                                    this plea .
An action against the Commission of the European                    The second plea alleges infringement of the second
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   paragraph of Article 25 and of Articles 44 and 45 of the
Instance of the European Communities on 19 August                   Staff Regulations and failure to observe general principles
1997 by Luc Verheyden, residing at Angera ( Italy),                 of law such as the principles of equality and of the
represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an          protection of legitimate expectations. The applicant
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                complains that the defendant infringed the rules and
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.                            principles referred to in this plea by refusing to promote
 ---pagebreak--- 1 . 11 . 97          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 331 /23
him when he was clearly eligible for promotion, and that           that, in view of the doubt subsisting at the end of the
he has suffered a significant setback in his career, no            investigation procedure, the decision which was adopted is
justification for which has been provided by the                   disproportionate to the conduct complained of, having
appointing authority.                                              regard in particular to the mitigating circumstances noted
                                                                   by the disciplinary authority.
Action brought on 22 August 1997 by Benedetto
         D'Agostino against the European Parliament                Action brought on 26 August 1997 by Catherine
                       ( Case T-242/97)                            Metdepenningen and others against the Commission of
                                                                                     the European Communities
                         ( 97/C 331 /46
                                                                                            (Case T-243/ 97)
                                                                                             ( 97/C 331 /47 )
               (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought                              (Language of the case: French)
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 22 August 1997 by Benedetto
D'Agostino, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel         An action against the Commission of the European
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at         Instance of the European Communities on 23 June 1997
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .         by Catherine Metdepenningen, Jerome Poussielgue and
                                                                   Jiirgen Wettig, all residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                   Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                   Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
— annul the decision of 28 October 1996 downgrading
     the applicant from grade CI , step 4, to grade C5,            The applicants claim that the Court should:
     step 1 ,
                                                                   — annul the Commission's decisions rejecting the
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 requests of the three applicants that they be allowed to
                                                                        benefit from possible extension of their contracts as
                                                                        members of the temporary staff, up to a total of five
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        years ,
The applicant maintains, first, that, by allowing an
unreasonable period to elapse between the various steps in         — declare      the      Commission     decision adopted      on
the proceedings against him, without there being any                    13 November 1996 unlawful in so far as it limits all
justification whatever for the length of time taken to                  temporary staff contracts falling under Article 2 ( a ) of
conclude those proceedings, the defendant has infringed                 the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants to a
the first paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff               maximum duration of three years, with a possibility of
Regulations of officials . The applicant further pleads                 extension for a maximum of one year,
infringement of the right to a fair hearing, in that the
contested decision is based on documents which were not
communicated to him .                                              — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant also maintains that the decision in issue is         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and by the
absence of a sufficient statement of reasons, and that it
was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality.         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
He states that the contested penalty was imposed on the            Case T-185/97 Godts v. Commission ( ! ).
basis of mere assertions which were not proven and which
were, in some cases, formally contested by the parties
concerned, and that the numerous inconsistencies                   (') OJ C252 , 16 . 8 . 1997, p . 37 .
throughout the whole of the case are such as to make it
impossible to establish the truth of the facts alleged
against him. Consequently, and in addition, he considers