CELEX: C2004/007/71
Language: en
Date: 2004-01-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-354/03: Action brought on 20 October 2003 by Gemma Reggimenti against the European Parliament

C 7/38                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        10.1.2004
Action brought on 15 October 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the Deputy Secretary General of the
                         (Case T-352/03)                                        Council of 29 November 2002 not to include her name
                                                                                on the list of officials promoted to Grade C 2 in the 2002
                          (2004/C 7/69)                                         promotions procedure;
                   (Language of the case: French)                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 October 2003 by Giorgio                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented
by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers.
                                                                          In support of her application, the applicant relies on a plea of
                                                                          breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in that the
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by
—     award damages of 5 000 euros to the applicant as                    considering comparative merits without taking account of the
      compensation for the non-material damage suffered by                differences in marking between the different departments of
      him as a result of the delay in drawing up the final staff          the institution.
      report (delay in placing a document in his personal file)
      in respect of the period 1999-2001;
—     make an order as to costs, expenses and fees and order
      the Commission of the European Communities to pay
      them.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 20 October 2003 by Gemma Reggi-
                                                                                     menti against the European Parliament
In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
of the general instructions implementing Article 43 of the                                          (Case T-354/03)
Staff Regulations, breach of the principle of sound adminis-
tration and failure to fulfil the duty to have regard to the
welfare of officials. The applicant also claims to have suffered                                     (2004/C 7/71)
non-material damage as a result and that, moreover, he was
the victim of harassment aimed at curtailing his freedom of
association.                                                                                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          the European Communities on 20 October 2003 against the
Action brought on 14 October 2003 by Inge-Lise Nielsen                    European Parliament by Gemma Reggimenti, residing in
         against the Council of the European Union                        Woluwé-Saint-Lambert (Belgium), represented by Claudine
                                                                          Junion, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (Case T-353/03)
                          (2004/C 7/70)                                   The applicant claims that Court of First Instance should:
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the European Parliament of 17 July
                                                                                2003 in so far as it denies the applicant payment of travel
                                                                                expenses as from 6 August 1999;
An action against Council of the European Union was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          —     order the European Parliament to pay the applicant travel
on 14 October 2003 by Inge-Lise Nielsen, residing in Villers-
                                                                                expenses for her daughter as from 6 August 1999;
la-Ville (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                        —     order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.1.2004             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 7/39
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, an official of the European Parliament, obtained           Following the entry into force on 1 January 2001 of the new
a court decision on 6 August 1999 to the effect that her                  financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the
daughter should reside mainly with her. The applicant and her             European Communities (1), the Parliament commenced a pro-
husband, also an official, were divorced by decree of 31 Octo-            cedure for amendment of the rules concerning budgetary
ber 2001, which became final on 12 January 2002. The                      heading 3701, the credits of which are intended to cover
Parliament decided to pay the applicant only half the travel              administrative and operational expenses of the political groups
expenses for her daughter, and to do so as from 2002, the                 and of the secretariat for non-attached Members. On 2 July
year in which the divorce took place.                                     2003 the Bureau of the Parliament decided to adopt the revised
                                                                          version of the latter rules, subject to amendment of the
                                                                          Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and other changes which
                                                                          might prove necessary following further consultations.
By this application the applicant contests that decision, on the
basis of Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. The
applicant submits that, in view of the decision granting her
primary custody of her daughter, the latter should be regarded            In support of their application for annulment of the decision
as being her dependent child and therefore that the travel                adopting the new rules, the applicant invoke first the alleged
expenses should be paid to her at the full rate.                          failure to comply with formal requirements laid down for the
                                                                          adoption of such rules. They contend that the new rules were
                                                                          notified to them in the form of a proposal which did not
                                                                          purport to be the final version of an official document. They
                                                                          also submit that the contested measure was adopted without
                                                                          the budgetary control committee, from which an opinion had
                                                                          been sought, having issued its report and that therefore an
                                                                          essential procedural requirement had been disregarded. In
                                                                          addition to matters of form, the applicants also claim that
                                                                          the new rules infringe the principle of equal treatment by
Action brought on 23 October 2003 by Bruno Gollnisch                      prohibiting new categories of expenses or employment of staff
        and Others against the European Parliament                        under budgetary heading 3701 only as far as non-attached
                                                                          Members are concerned.
                        (Case T-357/03)
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June
                                                                              2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget
                         (2004/C 7/72)                                        of the European Communities (OJ L 248 of 16.9.2002, p. 1).
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 23 October 2003 against the                   Action brought on 17 October 2003 by Siegfried Krahl
European Parliament by Bruno Gollnisch, of Limonest (France),               against the Commission of the European Communities
Marie-France Stirbois, of Villeneuve-Loubey (France), Carl
Lang, of Boulogne-Billancourt (France), Jean-Claude Martinez,
of Montpellier (France), Philip Claeys, of Overijse (Belgium)                                     (Case T-358/03)
and Koen Dillon, of Antwerp (Belgium), represented by
Wallerand de Saint Just, lawyer.
                                                                                                    (2004/C 7/73)
The applicants claim that Court of First Instance should:                                    (Language of the case: French)
—     annul the decision of the Bureau of the European
      Parliament of 2 July 2003 and more particularly the
      provisions thereof adopting a proposal by Mr Poettering             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      concerning the report of Mr Van Hulten, which amends                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      the rules on the use of budgetary heading 3701;
                                                                          European Communities on 17 October 2003 by Siegfried
                                                                          Krahl, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by Sébastien
—     order the European Parliament to pay the costs and                  Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal,
      lawyer’s fees amounting to EUR 10 000.                              lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.