CELEX: C1997/142/43
Language: en
Date: 1997-05-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 3 March 1997 by Piera Ghignone and Others against Council of the European Union (Case T-44/97)

10 . 5 . 97             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 142/ 19
by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address                  — order the defendant to pay the applicant one ecu as
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne                          token damages in respect of non-material damage,
Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau .
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
     rejecting the applicant's request of 12 March 1996
                                                                         The applicant objects to the reduction to three months of
     that she be regraded,
                                                                         her contract as a member of the auxiliary staff in
                                                                         category A in the service of the defendant. She states that
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's                 the offer of employment, notified by letter of 30 April
     decision of 22 November 1996 rejecting her                          1 996, expressly referred to a term of 36 months . However,
     administrative complaint of 10 July 1996,                           on the following 7 May, she presented herself at the
                                                                         recruitment department where a contract for the term to
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                         which she objects was presented to her. In those
                                                                         circumstances, it was only five weeks before the expiry of
                                                                         that three-month contract that the defendant informed her
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      that the offer of employment on the basis of which she
                                                                         made essential family, financial and professional
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                   arrangements had lapsed as a result of a 'typing error'.
Case T-16/97 ( M.
                                                                         In support of her claims, the applicant alleges, first,
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                    breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                         expectations and of the duty to have regard for the
                                                                         welfare of officials. She considers that, in view of the
                                                                         duration of the contract at issue, the administration 's
                                                                         slowness in examining the problems associated with one
                                                                         of the decisive factors prompting her acceptance of the
                                                                         offer, namely the duration of the contract, is manifestly
Action brought on 3 March 1997 by Isabelle Adine-Blanc                   contrary to the principle of legal certainty and the
     against Commission of the European Communities                      principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                          ( Case T-43/97)                                which any party to a contract is entitled to rely on as
                                                                         regards the conduct of the other party. In her opinion, it is
                            ( 97/C 142/42 )
                                                                         unacceptable for one of the parties unilaterally to change
                                                                         one of the essential features of a bilateral contract during
                (Language of the case: French)                           its currency, particularly on which was decisive in bringing
                                                                         about the consent of the other party to it. Even if —
An action against the Commission of the European                         although that was not the case — a typing error misled
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        the applicant, it was incumbent on the administration to
Instance on 3 March 1997 by Isabelle Adine-Blanc,                        take immediate action to rectify matters .
residing in Paris, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an                The applicant also alleges breach of the principles of
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                       sound administration and good management.
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission decision changing the duration
     of her contract as a member of the auxiliary staff of               Action brought on 3 March 1997 by Piera Ghignone and
     the 'Industrial Policy' Directorate-General, 'Legislation                  Others against Council of the European Union
     and     standarization        and    telematics     networks '                               Case T-44/97 )
     Directorate, ' Quality, certification and conformity
                                                                                                 ( 97/C 142/43 )
     marking' Unit ( DG.III.3P.4 ), offered by letter of
     30 April 1996 ,
                                                                                        (Language of the case: French)
— order the defendant to pay the applicant the
     remuneration to which she is entitled as a member of                An action against the Council of the European Union was
     the auxiliary staff for the period of 36 months                     brought before the Court of First Instance on 3 March
     indicated in the contract, plus interest at the rate of             1997 by Piera Ghignone, Helga Glassl, Colette Jemaa,
     8 % per annum, subject to deduction of any sums                     Enrica Massucco, Giovanni di Maio, Rene Franquinet,
     received and those which may be received by way of                  Klaus-Dietrich Jagstaidt, Michel Perillat, residing in
     remuneration in the same period,                                    Geneva, Jacques Brodin, residing in Tannay ( Switzerland ),
 ---pagebreak--- No C 142/20           EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10 . 5 . 97
Servatius van Thiel, residing in Nyon ( Switzerland), Ettore       retroactively from 1 July 1994, 1 January 1995 and 1 July
Zamproni, residing in Bellevue ( Switzerland ), Leo Geboers        1995 , thus severely curtailing the applicants' remuneration
and David Hollister, residing in New York, and Monique             ( by about 15% ). Article 13 of Annex X to the Staff
Weygandt, residing in Larchmont ( USA), represented by             Regulations requires that, where the variation in the cost
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel,              of living is found to exceed 5 % since the last adjustment
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                for a given country, interim measures be adopted to adjust
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30              the weighting. In this case no such measures were
Rue de Cessange.                                                   adopted.
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance              The applicants also refer to the fact that in this case the
should :
                                                                   Council received in due time proposals from the
                                                                   Commission for the adjustment of remuneration with
— annul the applicants' salary statements for May 1996,            effect from 1 July 1994, 1 January 1995 and 1 July 1995
    in that they apply for the first time Council                  for officials assigned to non-member countries but, for
    Regulations (Euratom, ECSC, EC ) No 577/96,                    what are in their view political reasons, the Council did
     ( Euratom, ECSC, EC ) No 578/96 and ( Euratom,                not adopt the contested regulations until 25 March 1996 .
    ECSC, EC ) No 579/96 of 25 March 1996 laying down              According to the applicants, that delay shows that the aim
    the weightings applicable to the remuneration of               pursued by those regulations certainly did not make it
    officials of the European Communities serving in third         necessary for them to take effect prior to their publication.
    countries as from 1 July 1994, 1 January 1995 and              In any event, the applicants state that they were not
     1 July 1995 respectively,                                     aware, and had no opportunity to learn, of the alleged
                                                                   irregularity of the remuneration paid before the date of
                                                                   publication of the regulations in question .
— annul the applicants' salary statements for June 1996,
     in that they incorporate deductions by way of recovery
     of salary overpaid, pursuant to the abovementioned            Lastly, the applicants claim that the fact that they were
     regulations,                                                  deprived of their right to consider whether or not it was
                                                                   appropriate to ask the appointing authority to arrange for
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                            all or part of their remuneration to be paid at their places
                                                                   of employment, subject to the weightings laid down for
                                                                   such places and after conversion at the corresponding rate
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                of exchange, constituted an infringement of Article 12 of
                                                                   Annex X to the Staff Regulations.
The applicants, who are officials employed outside the
territory of the Community, object to the procedures for           (') OJ No L 83 , 2 . 4 . 1996 , pp . 1 , 4 and 7 .
calculation of the weightings applicable, as from specified
dates, to their remuneration; they also object to the
deductions made to recover amounts allegedly overpaid .
On 25 March 1996, the Council adopted Regulations
( Euratom, ECSC , EC ) No 577/96 , ( Euratom, ECSC, EC )
No 578/96 and ( Euratom, ECSC, EC ) No 579196 laying               Action brought on 3 March 1997 by Georges Martins
down the weightings applicable to the remuneration of                 against the Commission of the European Communities
officials of the European Communities serving in third                                        ( Case T-45/97 )
countries as from 1 July 1994, 1 January 1995 and 1 July
 1995 respectively. (')                                                                         97/C 142/44 )
In support of their action, the applicants allege first                            (Language of the case: French)
breach of the principles of legal certainty, acquired rights
and non-retroactivity of provisions of regulations, and
breach of the obligation to state the reasons on which a           An action against the Commission of the European
measure is based. They state that the institution employing         Communities was brought before the Court of First
them drew up, under the regulations in force at the                Instance of the European Communities on 3 March 1997
material time, salary statements for the period of six              by Georges Martins, residing in Brussels, represented by
months prior to the adoption of the three contested                Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
regulations and that consequently those statements                  service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
constitute 'legal acts' which conferred subjective rights           Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
which ought to be protected. The principle is consistently
expressed in legal literature and in the case-law, they say,
that a legal act which has created such rights cannot be           The applicant claims that the Court should:
withdrawn .
                                                                   — annul the decision adopted by the Commission on
They also consider that it was unlawful for the Council to              22 November 1996 expressly rejecting the applicant's
 decide to make the contested regulations take effect                   complaint,