CELEX: C1996/318/43
Language: en
Date: 1996-10-26 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 13 September 1996 by Anne-Marie Toller against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-142/96)

26 . 10 . 96          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 318/25
Action brought on 13 September 1996 by Anne-Marie                   view that, because of the many health problems from which
Toller against the Commission of the European                       she was suffering at the time when the events at issue took
                          Communities                               place, and from which she continues to suffer, she could not
                       ( Case T-142/96 )                            be held fit to perform her duties or to have disciplinary
                                                                    action taken against her. That request was rejected by a
                         ( 96/C 318/43 )                            decision of 16 November 1995 , which is the decision
                                                                    challenged in this case.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    The applicant maintains, first, that in not recognizing the
An action against the Commission of the European                    considerable degree of invalidity and incapacity from which
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   she suffers and in seeking to justify her dismissal on the
Instance on 13 September 1996 by Anne-Marie Toller,                 ground of alleged incompetence in the performance of her
resident in Brussels, represented by Benoit Lombart and Eric        duties, the defendant has disregarded Articles 53 , 59 and 78
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in       of, and Annexes VIII and IX to the Staff Regulations, as well
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort          as the principle requiring every decision to be based on
Rheinsheim .
                                                                    correct and relevant grounds, that is to say, not vitiated by
                                                                    errors of fact or law .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the express decision of 16 November 1995 ,                  She points out that, according to case-law, no disciplinary
     notified to the applicant on 20 November 1995 ,                action may be taken against an official where the acts
     rejecting the request, made pursuant to Article 90 ( 1 ) of    complained of were closely linked to and influenced by his
     the Staff Regulations on 15 September 1995 , by which          physical, psychological or mental state . In the applicant's
     the applicant asked the appointing authority to                case, the opinion of the Invalidity Commitee, which
     reconsider the decision of 1 July 1993 notified by the         considered that she had no symptoms which could justify
     Director-General of staff administration, acting as the        the problems which she encountered in her work, was issued
     appointing authority, taking the disciplinary action of        without taking into account all the symptoms as a whole,
     removing her from her post, with no reduction or               which would necessarily have led to the contrary
     withdrawal of entitlement to retirement pension, and           conclusion. The applicant concludes that her situation
     stating that, with immediate effect, her services were no      satisfies the criteria generally applied as regards the need for
     longer required, the decision to take effect on 1 October      reconsideration and that a fresh Medical Committee should
     1993 ,                                                         reexamine the situation in the light of new factors.
— annul the Commission's implied decision rejecting the             The applicant also claims that Articles 51 and 86 to 89 of
     complaint submitted pursuant to Article 90 ( 2 ) of the        and Annex IX to the Staff Regulations have been infringed,
     Staff Regulations dating from 13 February 1996 ,               as well as the principles that the administration should have
                                                                    regard for the welfare of officials, equal treatment and
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                                                                    protection of legitimate expectations, inasmuch as the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                  appointing authority confirmed the disciplinary action of
                                                                    dismissal when her state of physical and mental health was
The applicant states that on 15 September 1995 she                  already, at the material time, such as to render her incapable
submitted a request, within the meaning of Article 90 ( 1 ) of      of performing her functions . The appointing authority
the Staff Regulations, that the decision of July 1993 taking        should therefore, on receiving medical information, have
the disciplinary action of removing her from her post with           subsequently withdrawn the dismissal decision on its own
effect from 1 October 1993 be reconsidered . She takes the           initiative and issued a fresh decision .