CELEX: C2000/079/84
Language: en
Date: 2000-03-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-18/00: Action brought on 20 January 2000 by Serena Angioli and Others v Commission of the European Communities

C 79/40               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.3.2000
    identifies the sudden, violent or abnormal event extraneous          31 January 1997 removing him from his post and ordered the
    to the applicant’s body, namely infection with the HIV               EIB to pay arrears of his remuneration which he should have
    virus in 1995. The committee’s views on the evidence of              received since his dismissal. The EIB appealed that judgment
    the precise cause of the infection are beyond its com-               of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Justice but it
    petence since that is a legal issue.                                 did not consider it relevant to make an application for interim
                                                                         measures, as it could have done, seeking a stay of execution of
(b) Error of law as to the criteria applied to the accident. The         the judgment in question.
    medical committee and the administration took the view
    that the concept of an accident within the meaning of
    Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and Article 2 of the             The EIB did not however uphold any request for a stay of
    Rules required that the event should not be the result of a          execution of the judgment submitted to it by the applicant; it
    freely assumed risk or be unforeseeable, in other words,             moreover made it very clear in its appeal that it did not
    that there should not be any fault or intention associated           consider itself at all required to enforce the judgment of the
    therewith, even though the wording of Article 2 of the               Court of First Instance. The EIB therefore arrogated to itself a
    Rules defining the term accident contains no such con-               power which the law does not provide for, namely, that of
    ditions; they are, rather, included in Articles 4 and 7 on           deciding the appropriateness of complying with a judgment of
    the circumstances in which cover is excluded.                        the court without however taking account of other interests,
                                                                         in particular the harm suffered by the applicant.
(c) Manifest error of appraisal, in that all the conditions for an
    accident provided for in Article 2 of the Rules were met.
                                                                         The applicant argues that failure to comply with the judgment
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance constitutes, on the part of the
                                                                         EIB, a serious failure to fulfil its oblations and misuse of powers
                                                                         and that that conduct by the EIB is causing him extremely
                                                                         serious and irreversible non-material damage inasmuch as it is
                                                                         such as to cast doubts on his professional ability and standing.
Action brought on 18 January 2000 by Michel Hautem
            against the European Investment Bank
                         (Case T-11/00)
                         (2000/C 79/83)
                                                                         Action brought on 20 January 2000 by Serena Angioli
                                                                         and Others v Commission of the European Communities
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                                   (Case T-18/00)
An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                     (2000/C 79/84)
on 18 January 2000 by Michel Hautem, residing in Schouweil-
er (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) represented by Michel Karp
and Joëlle Choucroun, of the Luxembourg Bar, 84 Grand-Rue.
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— order the Bank to pay him by way of reparation for                     ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    non-material damage caused by its failure to comply                  European Communities on 20 January 2000 by Serena Angi-
    with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                  oli, Claudia Delloye-Lemoine, Ann Perks, Geneviève Courtay
    28 September 1999 or, in the alternative, its refusal to             and Claude Gaspart, resident in Brussels, represented by Eric
    comply with it, the sum of EUR 20 000 or any other                   Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
    greater amount which this Court might deem equitable;                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
                                                                         Rheinsheim.
— order the Bank to pay the costs.
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         — annul the decisions of Roger Fry, head of unit at DG IX,
                                                                              addressed to Ms Courtay 23 March, Ms Delloye on 18 May
The applicant points out that, in its judgment of 28 September                and the other applicants on 31 May 1999 terminating
1999 in Case T-140/97, the Court of First Instance annulled                   their contracts on 30 June 1999 and annulling the renewal
the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of                         date of each applicant’s contract, namely 30 June 1999;
 ---pagebreak--- 18.3.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 79/41
— annul under the last paragraph of Article 8 of the con-                — order the defendant to pay, by way of making good his
    ditions applicable to other servants (CAOS), so far as                    material and non-material damage, damages in an amount
    necessary, the legal classification of the applicants’ con-               to be set by the Court;
    tracts since in reality each of them constitutes a renewal of
    a contract for an indefinite period under Article 2(a) CAOS;         — order the defendant to pay the costs.
— annul the express decision refusing the applications
    brought by the applicants; and
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         The applicant claims, first of all, that the contested decision is
                                                                         vitiated by a total absence of reasons, which is contrary to the
Pleas in law and main argument                                           second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                 The applicant claims, moreover, that the principle patere legem
advanced by the applicants in Case T-137/99 (1).                         quam ipse fecisti was infringed inasmuch as the contested
                                                                         decision does not comply with the rules which the Director of
                                                                         Cedefop had imposed on himself in his decision of 12 Nov-
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999, p. 38.                                        ember 1992, on provisions and criteria for the promotion of
                                                                         members of staff at the Centre.
Action brought on 24 January 2000 by David Crabbe
against European Centre for the Development of
                Vocational Training (Cedefop)                            Action brought on 27 January 2000 by A against Com-
                                                                                     mission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-21/00)
                                                                                                   (Case T-23/00)
                          (2000/C 79/85)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 79/86)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against European Centre for the Development of                                    (Language of the case: French)
Vocational Training (Cedefop) was brought before the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 January
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
2000 by David Crabbe, residing in Perea-Thessaloniki, rep-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
resented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an
                                                                         European Communities on 27 January 2000 by A, residing in
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Thewes
                                                                         Saint-Hubert (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, of the
& Reuter, 33 Rue des Capucins.
                                                                         Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         Chambers of Christian Kremer, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop not to
    promote him to grade A 5 or LA 5 in the 1998 promotion
    procedure, as evidenced by his memorandum of 12 May                  — annul the express decision of 4 November 1999 (notified
    1999 publishing the list of promoted officials;                           on 28 October 1999) rejecting the complaint lodged by the
                                                                              applicant on 22 July 1999 with the appointing authority
— annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop impliedly                     challenging it’s decision of 23 April 1999 ordering against
    rejecting his administrative compliant of 14 June 1999                    the applicant the disciplinary measure of removal from
    against the earlier decision, deemed to have been taken on                post, without reduction or withdrawal of entitlement to
    14 October 1999 by operation of the second indent of                      retirement pension;
    Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations in the absence of a
    reply to that complaint four months after it was lodged;             — order the defendant to pay the costs.