CELEX: C2005/229/58
Language: en
Date: 2005-09-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-256/05: Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Fernanda Ehrhardt-Avancini against the European Parliament

17.9.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 229/27
            
         Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Fernanda Ehrhardt-Avancini against the European Parliament
   (Case T-256/05)
   (2005/C 229/58)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 July 2005 by Fernanda Ehrhardt-Avancini, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Chiara Ronzi, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               1.
            
            
               annul the Parliament's decision rejecting the claim for restitution of the financial and/or other value of 207 hours 30 minutes which were deducted from her annual leave and then from her salary/pension;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               award default interest;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               order the Parliament to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   At the time the relevant facts arose, the applicant was an official at the European Parliament. The European Parliament sent a letter on 21 July 2004 informing her that 207 hours and 30 minutes would be deducted from her annual leave on account of her absence on medical grounds from 28 May to 11 July 2004. The Parliament's decision was made as a result of the findings of an examination of the applicant by an independent doctor, in accordance with Article 59 of the Staff Regulations, which indicated that the applicant was fit to return to her duties. A subsequent claim by the applicant seeking the restitution of the financial and/or other value of the hours deducted was also rejected by the Parliament.
   In support of her application, the applicant claims the infringement of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations and the internal rules of the Parliament on the ground that she was subjected to an examination by an independent doctor without a prior medical examination by the institution's medical officer. She also claims the infringement of the duty to give a statement of reasons, the rights of the defence and the principle ‘patere quam ipse legem fecisti’.