CELEX: C1996/133/60
Language: en
Date: 1996-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 6 March 1996 by Orlando Lopes against the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Case T-26/96)

4 . 5 . 96           1 fcN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 133/27
Action brought on 27 February 1996 by 'U' against the                 the Centre, towards which one month is counted for each
European Centre for the Development of Vocational                     full year or part of a year of service completed by them, but
                       Training ( Cedefop )                           not in any event for a period of less than six months, or
                         ( Case T-24/96 )                             alternatively to apply for a measure to be taken having the
                                                                      same effect. If, upon the expiry of that period, the grounds
                           ( 96/C 133/59 )                            on which their secondment was allowed have not altered,
                                                                      the secondment can be extended . The Director undertakes
                (Language of the case: German)                        to provide special solutions in the interests of the staff and of
                                                                      the Centre , in compliance with his obligations as an
                                                                      employer .
An action against the European Centre for the Development
                                                                      A general decision of the Director of the Centre of 7 July
of Vocational Training was brought before the Court of
                                                                      1995 , expressly referring to the framework agreement,
First Instance of the European Communities on 27 February
                                                                      provided for the applicant to be assigned for six months to a
1996 by 'U', represented by Dr Frank Montag,
                                                                      Community establishment in Berlin or seconded to a
Rechtsanwalt, Brussels , with an address for service in
                                                                      non-Community establishment there . By individual decision
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
Grand-Rue .
                                                                      of 31 July 1995 , the Director of the Centre stipulated that
                                                                      the applicant should continue to perform his functions by
                                                                      working in the Office of the Commission in Berlin . In
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          accordance with that decision, the applicant has been
                                                                      working in the Commission's Berlin Office since
                                                                      1 September 1995 .
— annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop of
     8 February 1996 ,                                                On 31 January 1996 the applicant applied for his
                                                                      ' secondment' to that Office to be extended . By letter of
— order Cedefop to pay the costs .                                    12 February 1996 the Director of the Centre notified the
                                                                      applicant of his decision of 8 February 1996 assigning the
                                                                      applicant to the Centre in Thessaloniki with effect from
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       1 March 1996 . The letter stated that, if the applicant refused
                                                                      to transfer to Thessaloniki on that date , he would be
                                                                      regarded as having resigned .
The applicant has been employed since 1993 in the service of
the European Centre for the Development of Vocational                 The applicant maintains that, by adopting the contested
Training . He was initially employed for an indefinite period         decision, the defendant first of all refused to extend his
under an employment contract of 12 November 1 993 which               employment in Berlin, and, second, that it moved his place
provided that his place of employment was to be Berlin ,              of employment to Thessaloniki . He contends that both of
where the Centre had its seat at that time .                          those measures are unlawful , since there were insufficient
                                                                      grounds for their adoption , they infringed his rights, and
On 16 May 1994 the Council , acting on a proposal from the            they were incompatible with the principle whereby an
Commission , adopted Regulation ( EC ) No 1131 /94                    administration is bound by its own decisions, together with
amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 337/75 establishing a                  the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and
European Centre for the Development of Vocational                     the general duty of an employer to have regard for the
Training, which provides that the Centre is to have its seat in       welfare and interests of his employees . As regards the alleged
Thessaloniki . The final recital in the preamble to that              alteration of his place of employment, the applicant also
Regulation provides : 'the aspects of the proposal which              complains that, by stipulating an unreasonably short
concern the staff of the Centre should be acted upon at a             deadline , the defendant failed to discharge its duty to have
later stage; . . . this Regulation does not prejudge the              regard for the welfare and interests of its employees , and
position of the Centre's staff'.                                      that that measure was intended to prompt the applicant to
                                                                      tender his resignation, so that it was not based on a proper
                                                                      exercise of discretionary powers .
On 23 January 1995 the Director of the Centre concluded a
framework agreement with the staff representatives
concerning ancillary social measures connected with the
relocation of the seat. That framework agreement provided
inter alia for the implementation of procedures aimed at              Action brought on 6 March 1996 by Orlando Lopes against
granting the members of the staff of the Centre the status of              the Court of Justice of the European Communities
officials of the Communities . The applicant states that, after
the staff of the Centre became subject to the rules applicable                                ( Case T-26/96 )
to officials and other servants of the European                                                 ( 96/C 133/60 )
Communities, he took part in an internal competition and
has since 1 January 1996 been ' stripped' of his status as an                         (Language of tbe case: French)
official . In addition, the framework agreement provided for
measures to be taken in respect of those 'who cannot leave             An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Berlin' ( point 4.3 ). Persons to whom this applies, and who           Communities was brought before the Court of First
furnish the relevant grounds, are entitled to be seconded for          Instance of the European Communities on 6 March 1 996 by
a period calculated on the basis of their period of service in         Orlando Lopes, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
 ---pagebreak---  No C 133/28          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4 . 5 . 96
 Marc Kleyr, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address                  of the right to a fair hearing and the principle of
 for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 17 Rue                   non-retroactivity, and are incompatible with Articles 21 and
 Louvigny.                                                            1 1 of the Staff Regulations .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          As regards the decision not to act on the request submitted
                                                                     pursuant to Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, the applicant
— annul the decision of the Court's complaints committee,            maintains,     first,  that    the   defendant    erred    in    its
     communicated on 31 January 1996, rejecting the                  characterization of the facts giving rise to that request. He
     complaint submitted by the applicant on 3 October               also maintains that the decision does not contain a sufficient
     1 995 ,                                                         statement of the reasons on which it is based, in accordance
— annul the 'opinion' of the Head of the Portuguese                  with Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, and that it is
     Translation Division of 21 January 1994 exhibited as            incompatible with the principle of non-retroactivity . Lastly,
     Annex 2 to the answers given by the administration of           he complains that, by adopting that decision, the defendant
     the Court of Justice to the questions put to the parties by     supported those responsible for the unlawful acts from
     the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-547/93 and        which he has suffered since 1987 .
    T-280/94 Lopes v. Court of Justice of the European
     Communities ,
— annul the document entitled 'Analysis of sample I'
    exhibited as Annex 1 to the answers dated 29 June 1995           Action brought on 6 March 1996 by Boubeker Maayouchi
    given by the administration of the Court of Justice to the          against the Commission of the European Communities
    questions put by the Court of First Instance in Joined                                    ( Case T-27/96 )
     Cases T-547/93 and T-280/94,
                                                                                                96/C 133/61 )
— annul the decision not to act on the request submitted on
    7 July 1995 seeking the cessation of the abuse of powers                         (Language of the case: French)
    or authority committed in relation to the applicant
    by the Head of Translation and jurist-revisers in               An action against the Commission of the European
    the Portuguese Translation Division, which was                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
    communicated by memorandum of 21 July 1995 from                  Instance of the European Communities on 6 March 1996 by
    the Registrar of the Court,                                      Boubeker Mayyouchi, residing in Rabat ( Morocco ),
— award the applicant damages of not less than Bfr                  represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
    20 000 000 by way of compensation for the material               address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
    and non-material damage suffered by him as a result of           Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener.
    the conduct of the servants of the Court of Justice,
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the defendant to pay all of the costs .
                                                                    — declare that the Commission failed to verify that the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           procedure for the election of representatives for staff
                                                                          serving outside the Community was conducted in
The applicant maintains, first, that the decision rejecting the           accordance with the procedural and substantive rules
complaint was adopted in clear breach of the first paragraph              governing such elections,
of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of officials, since the
nature of the contested acts is such as to call in question his     — declare that the list of voters in the local staff
personal and professional reputation and the defendant                    constituency, drawn up by the Head of the
administration failed to take all necessary measures to                   Commission's Delegation to Morocco, is incomplete,
ascertain whether or not there was any substance to the
serious accusations contested by the applicant.                     — annul the Electoral Committee's decision to reject two of
                                                                          the votes cast by local staff in the regional ballot held at
As regards the assessments contained in the document of                   the Commission's Delegation to Morocco,
21 January 1994 , the applicant observes that those
assessments do not appear in the reports concerning him             — annul the election result adopted by the Electoral
and were not communicated to him, so that he was                          Committee at its meeting of 13 February 1995 in so far
prevented from exercising his right to be heard in due                    as it declared Bassel Kaghadou as the elected regional
course, as required by Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff                    representative for the local staff constituency in
Regulations . He further claims that it is not possible to                geographical area No 7,
ascertain from the statements made in the assessments
whether or not those assessments are well founded, and that         — in so far as may be necessary, annul the decision adopted
this necessarily results in an infringement of Article 25 of the          by the Commission explicitly rejecting the applicant's
Staff Regulations.                                                        complaint,
As regards the second contested document, the applicant             — at the very least, declare that the Commission has
considers that that document does not constitute an                       committed errors in relation to the organization of the
impartial and objective analysis of his work, and he contests             elections and the counting of votes from Morocco and
the validity of the assessments contained in it. He further               order the Commission to pay the applicant 1 franc by
observes that that document contains assessments regarding                way of symbolic compensation for non-material
his conduct which were adopted in disregard of the principle              damage,