CELEX: C1997/252/75
Language: en
Date: 1997-08-16 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 11 June 1997 by Odette Simon against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-177/97)

No C 252/34          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16 . 8 . 97
Action brought on 11 June 1997 by Alan Hick against                  grade, to the President's cabinet for the duration of the
              Economic and Social Committee                          President's mandate . The candidate selected never in fact
                        Case T-176/97)                               took up the post of Head of the division in question, the
                                                                     applicant having performed those duties, first as deputy
                        ( 97/C 252/74 )                              and then as acting Head.
               (Language of the case: French)                        In the circumstances of the case, the applicant refers to the
                                                                     case-law following from the Court's judgment in Case
An action against the Economic and Social Committee of               T-272/94 Brulant ( ] ).
the European Communities was brought before the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 June             (') Case T-272/94 Brûlant v. European Parliament [ 1996 ] ECR-SC
1997 by Alan Hick, residing in Brussels, represented by                  II-1397 .
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Action brought on 11 June 1997 by Odette Simon against
                                                                             the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the decision to promote Wolfgang Junck to                                            ( Case T-l 77/97 )
    Grade A 3 and appoint him to the post of Head of the                                       ( 97/C 252/75 )
    Division for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural
    Affairs in Directorate B — Consultative Work,
                                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
— annul the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature
    for that post,                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 11 June 1997
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                     by Odette Simon, residing in Luxembourg, represented
                                                                     by Ariane Tornel, Thierry Demaseure and Fran^oise
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                                                                     in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
                                                                     Rue de Cess&nge.
The applicant, a Grade A 4 official of the Economic and
Social Committee, challenges the appointing authority's
refusal to appoint him to the post of Head of one of the             The applicant claims that the Court should:
defendant's divisions .
                                                                     — annul the decision refusing to regularize the
The applicant points out that he has been acting as Head                  applicant's administrative position as from May 1966,
of the Division in question since April 1996, following the
death of the previous Head, and that on 18 June 1996 the
defendant published the disputed vacancy notice. By the              — order the defendant to pay ECU 1 by way of symbolic
contested decision, the appointing authority appointed to                 compensation for the non-material damage suffered,
the post in question another person who never took up
the post. That person was subsequently seconded to the               — order the defendant to pay the costs.
'Directorate-General for Consultative Work, Specialized
Department for Delegations' and seconded in the interest
of the service to the post of Chef de Cabinet in the                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Secretariat of the President of the Economic and Social
Committee. Finally, by decision of 23 December 1996, the
applicant was called upon to carry out as acting Head the            The applicant states that she entered the Commission's
duties attaching to the post in issue in this case .                 service in May 1966 . There she remained without
                                                                     interruption until 25 October 1995 . She points out that,
                                                                     although most of her contracts were concluded through
In support of his claims the applicant alleges breach of             the device of intermediary companies and 'organes de
Article 4, first paragraph, and Article 27 of the Staff              tutelle', she always performed her duties for the
Regulations, and misuse of powers. In particular, he                 Commission and under the direct authority of its officials,
considers that the purpose of the contested decision was             in accordance with detailed rules laid down by the
neither to fill the vacant post nor to secure for the                Commission . Her work contributed to the attainment of
institution the services of an official of the highest               the objectives for which the ECSC Treaty made the
standard of ability, efficiency and integrity. In his view, the      Commission responsible and was equivalent to a budgeted
decision was intended to promote another person to                   post. The duties entrusted to her were permanent defined
Grade A 3 with the sole aim of seconding him, at his new             duties of Community public service.
 ---pagebreak--- 16 . 8 . 97          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 252/35
First, the applicant alleges misuse of powers and abuse of           He pleads infringement of Article 23 of the Rules of
process, because the series of employment contracts or of            Procedure of the Commission of 17 February 1993 , since
contracts for the supply of services concluded with a series         he was automatically entitled and required to deputize for
of companies is unlawful, inasmuch as the contractual                his hierarchical superior during the latter's absences, in
terms were defined, not according to the needs of the                particular on 16 and 20 August 1996 . According to the
service, but with the sole aim of evading the application of         applicant, the contested decision was therefore adopted
the provisions of the Staff Regulations or other rules.              wilfully and in disregard of the steps taken by the
Those contracts must be regarded as concluded with an                applicant to ensure that his rights were respected.
agent covered by the Staff Regulations and/or the                    Moreover, such conduct represents a flagrant breach of
Conditions of Employment of Other Servants.                          the Commission's duty to have regard for his interests as
                                                                     one of its officials .
The second plea alleges breach of the duty to have regard
for the welfare and interests of officials, the duty to              His second plea alleges infringement of Article 25 of the
provide assistance and breach of the principle of                    Staff Regulation, on the ground that the Commission
protection of legitimate expectations, and also                      failed to provide a reasoned statement informing the
infringement of Article 3 of the European Convention on              applicant of the factors on the basis of which the merits of
                                                                     the contested decision could be assessed .
Human Rights, inasmuch as the Commission failed to
take action when the applicant requested its help .
                                                                     As regards the claim for compensation, the applicant
                                                                     maintains that he has suffered non-material damage, since
Last, the applicant assesses her non-material damage                 for nearly two years he has been in a state of uncertainty
caused by those infringements and failures at the symbolic           as to the future of his career.
sum of ECU 1 .
                                                                     Action brought on 17 June 1997 by Huguette Meyer and
Action brought on 11 June 1997 by Albano Moncada                     others against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                               Communities
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                            ( Case T-181/97)
                       ( Case T-l 78/97 )
                                                                                              ( 97/C 252/77 )
                         ( 97/C 252/76 )
                                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     An action against the Court of Justice of the European
An action against the Commission of the European                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 1997
Instance of the European Communities on 11 June 1997                 by Huguette Meyer, residing at Mamer ( Luxembourg ),
by Albano Moncada, residing in Luxembourg, represented               Ines Bruno, residing in Luxembourg, Alba Muller di
by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane                     Leonardo, residing at Mersch ( Luxembourg), Maria da
Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in          Paz Gomes, residing in Luxembourg, and Leonor Araujo,
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30               residing at Strassen ( Luxembourg ), represented by Jean­
Rue de Cessange.                                                     Noel Louis, Ariane Tornel and Fran?oise Parmentier, of
                                                                     the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Rue de Cessange .
— annul the decision of 12 August 1996 directing a                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
     colleague of the applicant to deputize for his
     hierarchical superior during the latter's absences on 16        — annul the decisions expressly rejecting their requests
     and 20 August 1996,                                                  for reimbursement of the sums wrongly deducted in
                                                                          respect of household grants,
— order the Commission to pay to the applicant the                   — order the defendant to reimburse to them all sums
     token sum of ECU 1 ,                                                 wrongly deducted and to pay interest thereon at the
                                                                          rate of 8 % per annum from the date when each
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                 deduction was made until the date of reimbursement,
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay the costs.
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 The applicant, a grade A 4 official, contests the decision
 of his Head of Unit directing a colleague of the applicant           The applicants, whose spouses work in the Luxembourg
 to deputize for the Head of Division E-3 during the                  banking sector, state that up until June 1996 the defendant
 latter's absences on 16 and 20 August 1996 .                         deducted, pursuant to Article 67 ( 2 ) of the Staff