CELEX: C1996/233/22
Language: en
Date: 1996-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 17 May 1996 by Georges Tzoanos against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-74/96)

No C 233/ 12          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10 . 8 . 96
Action brought on 17 May 1996 by Georges Tzoanos                      responsibility, in that he was involved only in the selection
   against the Commission of the European Communities                 and technical control of subsidized projects and not in
                                                                      financial control . The Commission's decision was therefore
                        ( Case T-74/96
                                                                      totally irrelevant both in fact and in law and infringed
                          ( 96/C 233 /22 )
                                                                      Article 21 of the Staff Regulations , which required that the
                                                                      applicant should be held responsible only for tasks entrusted
                                                                      to him .
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Finally, the applicant considers that the disciplinary
                                                                      procedure was conducted in such a way that he was not able
An action against the Commission of the European                      properly to defend himself, particularly by reason of the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     manner in which the hearings were conducted , the
Instance of the European Communities on 17 May 1996 by                documents collated and the questions put, but also by
Georges Tzoanos, residing in Brussels , represented by Eric           reason of the very personality of the officials participating at
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in         various stages of the disciplinary proceedings , especially the
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du                 hearings , and by reason of the existence of parallel criminal
Fort Rheinsheim .                                                     proceedings . Moreover, the multitude of obvious
                                                                      inaccuracies which riddled these proceedings led the
                                                                      Commission to hold against him a series of alleged
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          irregularities that did not in fact exist, and to impose an
                                                                      obviously disproportionate sanction . In the light of the
                                                                      above , the applicant pleads infringement of Articles 86 and
— annul the decision of 22 June 1995 , taking effect on               88 of, and Annex IX to , the Staff Regulations, disregard of
     1 August 1995 and notified on 23 June 1995 , whereby             defence rights and the principle of proportionality, excess of
     the Commission decided to impose on the applicant the            authority and misuse of powers .
     disciplinary sanction in Article 86 ( 2 ) ( f) of the Staff
     Regulations, namely removal from his post without
     reduction or withdrawal of entitlement to retirement
     pension ,
— annul the express rejection of 19 February 1996 of the
     applicant's complaint against the contested decision             Action brought on 22 May 1996 by W against the
     lodged on 21 September 1995 under No R780/95 ,                            Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                              Case T-78/96 )
                                                                                              ( 96/C 233/23 )
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                                      (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant argues, first, that, contrary to what is stated in      Communities was brought before the Court of First
the reasoning for the contested decision , he has not in any          Instance of the European Communities on 22 May 199 6 by
way compromised his independence or integrity and that,              W, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi ,
furthermore, he was not in a position in which he would be            of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
likely to make applications or declarations to the                    Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue
                                                                      Glesener .
Commission , or supply it with information, preliminary or
otherwise . He maintains that the Commission's allegations
against him are either not established, or are established to        The applicant claims that the Court should :
such an insignificant extent that the requirements of the
Staff Regulations are not fulfilled , and adds that he has
committed no fault to justify either the contested decision or       — annul the decision of 20 July 1995 compulsorily
its severity . In his opinion , the contested decision was                ' reassigning' her to another post and , in so far as
adopted on the basis of an incorrect assessment of the facts ,            necessary, annul the decision rejecting her complaint,
thereby infringing Articles 12 , 13 and 14 of the Staff                   taken on 22 February 1996 and notified on 28 February
                                                                          1996 ,
Regulations of officials .
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
Concerning the allegations of administrative irregularities
and budgetary and financial mismanagement during the
exercise of his duties as head of the 'Tourism ' unit, the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
applicant maintains that the Commission imputes
responsibility to him in respect of duties that were not             The applicant, an official assigned to the Publications
entrusted to him and were not within his area of                     Office , challenges the decision of the appointing authority