CELEX: C1997/054/52
Language: en
Date: 1997-02-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 12 December 1996 by Adam Buick against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-209/96)

No C 54/32            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 2 . 97
21 February 1995 , in order to remind him that his leave               — annul the Commission 's decision rejecting the claim
on personal grounds had come to an end . It was not until                   for compensation for the damage suffered by the
 19 April 1996 that the applicant was reinstated, by                        applicant,
decision of the appointing authority, in the post which he
now occupies. That decision took effect from 1 June 1996 ,             — order the Commission to reinstate the applicant in
and the applicant therefore took up his duties again with                   respect of the period from 1 January 1992 to 1 July
effect from that date .                                                      1993 and to pay him the remuneration to which he is
                                                                            entitled for that period, together with default interest
The applicant states           in that regard that,       in the            at the rate of 8 % per annum as from the date on
circumstances , the defendant's conduct was unlawful .                      which the remuneration due first became payable until
In his view, the semi-unconditional nature of the                           the day on which payment is effected,
reinstatement obligation laid down in Article 40 ( 4 ) ( d ) of
the Staff Regulations has been clearly confirmed by the                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
relevant case-law, subject only to the availability of a
vacant post corresponding to the abilities required of the             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
person concerned . That obligation cannot therefore be
disregarded on account of any professional activities                  The applicant, a Commission official on leave on personal
which the official in question was pursuing on the date                grounds since 1 January 1989, asks the Commission to
when the first post fell vacant. Consequently, the claim by            pay compensation for the damage suffered through not
the appointing authority, in its decision rejecting the                being reinstated, in accordance with Article 40 ( 4 ) ( d ) of
complaint, that it took into account the applicant's                   the Staff Regulations, in the first post to fall vacant and,
inability immediately to free himself of his responsibilities          in particular, in post A 7/4 007165 , declared vacant in
as professor at the University of Lausanne in order to                 DG III/D/ 1 on 22 October 1991 . The Commission has
return to the Parliament cannot constitute a valid excuse
                                                                       failed as yet to show that it carried out a genuine and
in the circumstances . In actual fact, the applicant never             detailed    examination      of his  abilities vis-a-vis   those
put forward any obstacle to his reinstatement.                         required by the post in question . Furthermore, the
                                                                       applicant alleges that the Commission 's appraisal of his
Even if ( which is denied ) the head of the appointing                 adaptability, which led to the refusal to reinstate him in
authority was legitimately led by the applicant to believe             the first post to fall vacant, discloses a manifest error of
                                                                       assessment .
that that authority could postpone the date of his
reinstatement, it was not open to the appointing authority,
for its part, to disregard the wording and purpose of the
aforementioned provision of the Staff Regulations in order
unilaterally to evade its obligations .
                                                                       Action brought on 16 December 1996 by Margarida
                                                                       Maria Mendes Pires Afonso against the Commission of
                                                                                         the European Communities
                                                                                              ( Case T-2 10/96 )
Action brought on 12 December 1996 by Adam Buick                                                 ( 97/C 54/53 )
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-209/96 )                                              (Language of the case: French)
                           ( 97/C 54/52
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the Europeah
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                (Language of the case: French)                         Instance of the European Communities on 16 December
                                                                       1996 by Margarida Maria Mendes Pires Afonso, residing
                                                                       in Luxembourg, represented by Christophe Steyaert, of the
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       the applicant's residence, 6 rue Henri Pensis .
Instance of the European Communities on 12 December
1996 by Adam Buick, residing in Brussels, represented by
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of               The applicant claims that the Court should:
the   Brussels   Bar,    with    an   address  for    service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30                 — annul the decision of the appointing authority of
rue de Cessange .                                                           26 February 1996 in so far as it appoints the applicant
                                                                            to grade A 7, step 3 , and implicitly refuses to appoint
                                                                            her to grade A 6,
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul the decision of the appointing authority of
— declare that the Commission acted unlawfully in not                       1 October 1996 expressly rejecting the complaint
    reinstating the applicant on 1 January 1992 in post                     which the applicant submitted against the above
    007165-ex Strauss, declared vacant in DG III/D/ 1 on                    decision and which was lodged at the Secretariat­
    22 October 1991 ,                                                       General of the Commission on 26 June 1996 ,