CELEX: C1997/009/32
Language: en
Date: 1997-01-11 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 28 October 1996 by Yannick Chevalier-Delanoue against the Council of the European Union (Case T-172/96)

No C 9/ 18            1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11 . 1 . 97
the basis of correct figures and, on the other hand, from               Action brought on 20 September 1996 by Ernesto
the fact that the Commission is using different figures to              Brognieri against the Commission of the European
calculate reference quantities for 1995 and 1996 .                                                 Communities
                                                                                                ( Case T-l 74/96 )
(!) OJ No L 193 , 3 . 8 . 1996 , p . 15 .
                                                                                                    ( 97/C 9/33 )
                                                                                         (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 28 October 1996 by Yannick
Chevalier-Delanoue against the Council of the European                  An action against the Commission of the European
                                 Union                                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 20 September
                          ( Case T-l 72/96 )
                                                                        1996 by Ernesto Brognieri , residing at Barasso ( Italy ),
                             ( 97/C 9/32 )                              represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxemburg at the Chambers of
                (Language of the case: French)                          Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Communities on 28 October 1996 by Yannick Chevalier­
Delanoue, residing at Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the                      — annul the decision of 30 November 1995 concerning
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxemburg at                    the award of shiftwork allowance, in compliance with
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange .                                  the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance
                                                                             on 8 June 1995 in case T-583/93 ,
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Council of 29 January 1996                  — order all sums due thereunder to be paid to the
    not to increase his annual leave by additional                           applicant in whole, both principal and default interest,
    travelling time,                                                         the amount of the principal being assessed, without
                                                                             prejudice, in particular to increases during the course
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                     of the proceedings, at the sum of Lit 24 997 792, with
                                                                             interest to be assessed at the rate of 8 % per annum,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, an official at the Council whose place of                — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
origin was fixed as Washington, states that he is
challenging the decision whereby the appointing authority
refuses to add to the duration of the annual leave to                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
which he is entitled travelling time calculated by taking
into account the needs and, in particular, the actual                   The applicant, who is the same as in Cases T-583/93 ,
duration and conditions of the journey as well as the                   settled by judgment of 8 June 1995 , and in Case T-148/96,
period of adjustment/recovery resulting from the time                   still pending, challenges the decision of the appointing
difference .
                                                                        authority of 30 November 1995 awarding him the
                                                                        shiftwork allowance            from   1   March   1993     until
He considers that the travelling time of two days granted               31 December 1993 .
to him in reliance on the rules generally applied to
officials whose place of origin is outwith Europe covers
only the duration of the journey, but takes no account of               He complains in particular that the decision ignores the
the time to recover from the fatigue to which such a                    fact that the decision regularizing his position was not
journey gives rise. In the view of the applicant, this means            taken until 28 November 1995 and that the operative part
that the appointing authority treats officials whose place              of the said judgment of 8 June 1995 required the payment
of origin is situated outwith Europe differently from those             of sums intended to cover the period between 1 March
whose place of origin is situated within Europe and who                 1993 and the date on which the decision regularizing his
are entitled, in accordance with Article 7 of Annex V to                position was adopted . That date cannot refer to the date
the Staff Regulations, to an increase of their holiday in               of a decision nearly two years before the judgment.
order to take account of the strain of the journey
notwithstanding the fact that they are not faced with the
problem of recovering from the effects of jet-lag. He                   In support of his claims, the applicant alleges infringement
concludes that the contested decision was adopted in                    of Articles 26 and 56a of the Staff Regulations, and
breach of the principle of equal treatment and non­                     Articles 176 and 179 of the Treaty of Rome, and
discrimination as well as of Article 7 ( 5 ) of Annex V to              infringement of the principle of res judicata.
the Staff Regulations .