CELEX: C2004/047/69
Language: en
Date: 2004-02-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-428/03: Action brought on 20 December 2003 by Gerhard Keinhorst against the Commission of the European Communities

C 47/36                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.2.2004
The applicants finally claim that the Commission has violated                 The applicant submits that the reasoning for the contested
fundamental principles of Community law, such as the prin-                    decision is unsound and that that decision infringes the general
ciple of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, the prin-               principle of sound administration that reasons must be stated
ciple of independence and excellence of scientific advice, the                for decisions. The applicant also alleges infringement of
principle of proportionality, the principle of equal treatment                Article 5 of Appendix 2 to the Staff Regulations of Europol (1)
and the principle of sound administration. The applicants also                and infringement of the principle of due care.
claim that there was a lack of competence on the part of the
Commission and that the Commission misused its powers.
                                                                              (1) Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the staff regulations
                                                                                  applicable to Europol employees (OJ 1999 C 26, p. 7).
(1) Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approxi-
    mation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating
    to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous sub-
    stances (OJ English special edition: Series I Chapter 1967, p. 234).
                                                                              Action brought on 20 December 2003 by Gerhard Kein-
                                                                              horst against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                                              ties
Action brought on 23 December 2003 by Elisabeth Saskia                                                 (Case T-428/03)
                        Smit against Europol
                                                                                                        (2004/C 47/69)
                           (Case T-423/03)
                                                                                                  (Language of the case: French)
                            (2004/C 47/68)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 20 December 2003 by Gerhard
                                                                              Keinhorst, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by
                                                                              Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
An action against Europol was brought before the Court of                     bourg.
First Instance of the European Communities on 23 December
2003 by Elisabeth Saskia Smit, represented by P. de Casparis
and M.F. Baltussen.                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              —     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                         23 December 2002, in so far as it did not award the
                                                                                    applicant additional seniority and therefore reclassified
1.    annul the implicit rejection by Europol of her objection                      him in Grade A6, Step 1, instead of Grade A6, Step 3;
      to the decision of 19 May 2003 and, at the same time,
      annul the decision of 19 May 2003;                                      —     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
                                                                                    14 April 2003, in so far as it:
2.    order Europol to pay the applicant compensation includ-
      ing, in any event, the costs of the present proceedings.                      —    did not fix the applicant’s classification in Grade A6,
                                                                                         Step 3 upon recruitment,
                                                                                    —    did not reconstruct the applicant’s career in grade
                                                                                         by bringing forward the date of his promotion to A5
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                          and, if appropriate, promoting him to A4,
                                                                                    —    limited the date on which the reclassification
The applicant’s application for the post of ‘Asset Administrator’                        decision took effect as regards its pecuniary effects
with Europol was rejected by the contested decision.                                     to 5 October 1995;
 ---pagebreak--- 21.2.2004              EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 47/37
—     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated             Action brought on 21 December 2003 by Iosif Dascalu
      4 September 2003, notified to the applicant on 11 Sep-             against the Commission of the European Communities
      tember 2003, rejecting his complaint R/173/03;
—     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated                                      (Case T-430/03)
      24 November 2003, notified to the applicant on
      10 December 2003, rejecting his complaint R/438/03;
                                                                                                 (2004/C 47/70)
—     Order the defendant to pay compensation set provision-
      ally at a sum of EUR 125 000 in case, against all
      possibility, it should not be able to reconstruct the
                                                                                         (Language of the case: French)
      applicant’s career in grade;
—     Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-
      ings.
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities on 21 December 2003 by Iosif
                                                                       Dascalu, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                       bourg.
Following the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases
C-389/98 P and C-459/98 P, the Commission reconsidered                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
under Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations the classification
of officials who used remedies within the meaning of Article 91
of the Staff Regulations. Following that exercise, the Com-            —    Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
mission adopted the contested decision in respect of the appt.              23 December 2002, in so far as it did not award the
                                                                            applicant additional seniority and therefore reclassified
                                                                            him in Grade A6, Step 1, instead of Grade A6, Step 3;
In support of his action, the applicant claims, as regards
additional seniority, that there has been a breach of the              —    Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
Commission decisions of 6 June 1973 and 1 September 1983                    14 April 2003, in so far as it:
on the criteria applicable to appointment in grade and to
classification in step on recruitment, a breach of Article 5(3)
of the Staff Regulations, a breach of the principle of equal                —     did not fix the applicant’s classification in Grade A6,
treatment and, last, a breach of Article 25(2) of the Staff                       Step 3 upon recruitment;
Regulations and of the obligation to state reasons.
                                                                            —     did not reconstruct the applicant’s career in grade
                                                                                  by bringing forward the date of his promotions
The applicant further claims that the contested decision                          to A5 and A4;
breaches the principle that an official should have reasonable
career prospects and Article 5(3) and Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations in that the decision does not reconstruct his career            —     limited the date on which the reclassification
in grade.                                                                         decision took effect as regards its pecuniary effects
                                                                                  to 5 October 1995.
Last, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of             —    Order the defendant to pay compensation set provision-
Article 62 of the Staff Regulations in that the Commission                  ally at a sum of EUR 125 000 in case, against all
limited the pecuniary effects of the contested decision to                  possibility, it should not be able to reconstruct the
5 October 1995.                                                             applicant’s career in grade;
                                                                       —    Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-
                                                                            ings.