CELEX: C1997/331/47
Language: en
Date: 1997-11-01 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 26 August 1997 by Catherine Metdepenningen and others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-243/97)

1 . 11 . 97          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 331 /23
him when he was clearly eligible for promotion, and that           that, in view of the doubt subsisting at the end of the
he has suffered a significant setback in his career, no            investigation procedure, the decision which was adopted is
justification for which has been provided by the                   disproportionate to the conduct complained of, having
appointing authority.                                              regard in particular to the mitigating circumstances noted
                                                                   by the disciplinary authority.
Action brought on 22 August 1997 by Benedetto
         D'Agostino against the European Parliament                Action brought on 26 August 1997 by Catherine
                       ( Case T-242/97)                            Metdepenningen and others against the Commission of
                                                                                     the European Communities
                         ( 97/C 331 /46
                                                                                            (Case T-243/ 97)
                                                                                             ( 97/C 331 /47 )
               (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought                              (Language of the case: French)
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 22 August 1997 by Benedetto
D'Agostino, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel         An action against the Commission of the European
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at         Instance of the European Communities on 23 June 1997
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .         by Catherine Metdepenningen, Jerome Poussielgue and
                                                                   Jiirgen Wettig, all residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                   Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                   Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
— annul the decision of 28 October 1996 downgrading
     the applicant from grade CI , step 4, to grade C5,            The applicants claim that the Court should:
     step 1 ,
                                                                   — annul the Commission's decisions rejecting the
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 requests of the three applicants that they be allowed to
                                                                        benefit from possible extension of their contracts as
                                                                        members of the temporary staff, up to a total of five
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        years ,
The applicant maintains, first, that, by allowing an
unreasonable period to elapse between the various steps in         — declare      the      Commission     decision adopted      on
the proceedings against him, without there being any                    13 November 1996 unlawful in so far as it limits all
justification whatever for the length of time taken to                  temporary staff contracts falling under Article 2 ( a ) of
conclude those proceedings, the defendant has infringed                 the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants to a
the first paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff               maximum duration of three years, with a possibility of
Regulations of officials . The applicant further pleads                 extension for a maximum of one year,
infringement of the right to a fair hearing, in that the
contested decision is based on documents which were not
communicated to him .                                              — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant also maintains that the decision in issue is         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and by the
absence of a sufficient statement of reasons, and that it
was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality.         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
He states that the contested penalty was imposed on the            Case T-185/97 Godts v. Commission ( ! ).
basis of mere assertions which were not proven and which
were, in some cases, formally contested by the parties
concerned, and that the numerous inconsistencies                   (') OJ C252 , 16 . 8 . 1997, p . 37 .
throughout the whole of the case are such as to make it
impossible to establish the truth of the facts alleged
against him. Consequently, and in addition, he considers