CELEX: C2007/199/99
Language: en
Date: 2007-08-25 00:00:00
Title: Case F-59/07: Action brought on 15 June 2007 — Feral v Committee of the Regions

25.8.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 199/51
            
         Action brought on 15 June 2007 — Feral v Committee of the Regions
   (Case F-59/07)
   (2007/C 199/99)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Pierre-Alexis Feral (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Committee of the Regions of the European Union (CoR)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Administration Director and the Secretary General of the CoR of 26 July 2006 to recover the amounts paid to the applicant in application of the correction coefficient for that part of his remuneration transferred to France between March 2003 and May 2005;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of 4 December 2006 of the Administration Director of CoR fixing that amount at EUR 3 600,16;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the CoR to repay to the applicant the sum of EUR 3 600,16, plus default interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of the recovery until payment in full;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the CoR to pay to the applicant the amount which should have been paid to him if the correct correction coefficient had been applied to the part of his remuneration which should have been transferred to France from June 2005, plus default interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of the recovery until payment in full;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the CoR to resume, from the date of the future judgment, the transfer of part of the applicant's remuneration to France, with the correction coefficient applicable to that country;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the CoR to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The first plea in law alleges infringement of (i) Article 85 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’), (ii) the final indent of the second paragraph of Article 2 of the Rules laying down the procedure for the transfer of part of an official's emoluments (‘the Common Rules’) and (iii) paragraphs 2 and 4 of Conclusion No 204/92 of the Heads of Administration of 3 December 1992. According to the applicant, the CoR could not hold that he was not entitled, pursuant to Article 17(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, to have part of his remuneration transferred to his building savings account in France on the ground that he had, through transfers to a deposit account, brought his building savings account once more below the maximum amount which could be saved. In particular, he submits that (i) the Common Rules do not require that transfers correspond to obligatory payments and (ii) bringing the building savings account below the maximum limit in this way is an established banking practice which complies with French law on building savings accounts, as referred to by the Conclusion of the Administrative Heads.
   The second plea in law alleges infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations inasmuch as the CoR found that the irregularity of the transfers at issue was so apparent that, in view of his legal qualifications, the applicant was or, at the very least, ought to have been aware of it. In that respect, the applicant considers that: (i) in the light of the Conclusion of the Heads of Administration, the building savings account which he opened appeared to correspond to the concept of ‘building savings contract’ for the purposes of the Common Rules; (ii) bringing the building savings account below the maximum limit in the way he did appeared to comply with those rules; (iii) following reviews in December 2003 and December 2004, his personnel file appeared to be complete and in order; (iv) having only restricted access to his personnel file, he was not in a position to consult the necessary documents in order to review whether the transfers were in order.