CELEX: C2002/068/37
Language: en
Date: 2002-03-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-12/02: Action brought on 24 January 2002 by Abraham Dekker against Europol

16.3.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 68/21
Action brought on 24 January 2002 by Spyridon de                         Action brought on 24 January 2002 by Abraham Dekker
Athanassios Pappas against Commission of the European                                             against Europol
                          Communities
                                                                                                   (Case T-12/02)
                         (Case T-11/02)
                                                                                                   (2002/C 68/37)
                        (2002/C 68/36)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               First Instance of the European Communities on 24 January
European Communities on 24 January 2002 by Spyridon de                   2002 by Abraham Dekker, residing in Dordrecht (Nether-
Athanassios Pappas, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represent-           lands), represented by Gerrit Pieter Jongeneel and Serge
ed by Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, lawyer.                               Alexsander Ray, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 26 Octo-         —     annul the decision of the Director of Europol of 15 June
      ber 2001 in response to his complaint (R/277/01) of                      2001;
      5 June 2001;
                                                                         —     order that the applicant be compensated for the damage
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   suffered by him, to be specified in greater detail (relating
                                                                               to remuneration, invalidity and harm to his reputation);
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     order Europol to pay the costs.
The applicant, formerly a Director-General at the Commission,
contests the decision fixing the duration of the monthly                 Pleas in law and main arguments
allowance paid to him following his retirement in the interests
of the service, decided on the basis of Article 50 of the Staff          The contested decision prejudices the applicant, inasmuch as
Regulations, on the ground that it does not take into account,           his contract was extended for only six months instead of one
in the computation, of the applicant’s period of service in              year, as should normally be the case. According to the
the national administrative authorities of Greece and the                applicant, that extension of the contract was wrongly used as
Netherlands prior to his taking up his duties with the                   a means of assessing his performance. However, such an
Communities.                                                             assessment must be carried out on the basis of Articles 2, 23
                                                                         to 29 and 88 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol
He argues that where an official takes up duties with the                employees (1). According to the applicant, however, there has
Communities after having worked for a national adminis-                  never been a negative evaluation of his skills on the basis of
tration and such administration has paid to the Communities              those articles.
the actuarial equivalent of his prior pension entitlement or, as
in his case, the sums repaid from the pension fund, the period
of former service of such official is, pursuant to Articles 11           The applicant further pleads the absence of an adequate
and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations (General                   statement of reasons for the contested decision, inasmuch as
Provisions), deemed to be actual service, that is to say service         the reasons given are not supported in any way, or are even
provided within the Communities, with all the attendant legal            clearly incorrect. Moreover, according to the applicant, a
effects. The applicant therefore takes the view that the                 period of six months for the extension of his contract is
Commission ought to have taken into account his period of                contrary to Article 6 of the Staff Regulations. Given that the
service in the national administrations and that, by failing to          length of the applicant’s initial contract was one year, it should
do so, has acted unlawfully.                                             likewise have been extended for a minimum of one year.
                                                                         Lastly, the applicant pleads violation of the principle of non-
                                                                         discrimination, inasmuch as he is the only official whose
The applicant also claims that the contested decision disregards         contract has not been extended for a minimum of one year.
the principle of non-discrimination and the Community rules
on freedom of movement of persons.
                                                                         (1) Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the staff regulations
                                                                             applicable to Europol employees (OJ C 26, 30.1.1999, p. 23).