CELEX: C1996/180/89
Language: en
Date: 1996-06-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 22 April 1996 by Livio Costantini against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-57/96)

22 . 6 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 180/37
Action brought on 22 April 1996 by Alberto Maccaferri                was the subject of the recruitment procedure in question for
  against the Commission of the European Communities                 a post of temporary staff member at grade B 1 in another
                        ( Case T-56/96 )                             directorate general, and that neither the applicant nor the
                                                                     other successful candidates were informed of the exchange
                          ( 96/C 180/88 )
                                                                     or given clear, precise and complete reasons justifying it. The
                                                                     applicant states that in so far as the appointing authority
               (Language of the case: French)                        organized the said selection procedure with a view to filling
                                                                     a specific grade A5/A4 post in DG XXIII, the defendant
                                                                     institution breached the rules for filling vacant posts by
An action against the Commission of the European                     derogating in the present case from the rule requiring it to do
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    so by appointing a candidate whose name is on the list of
Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 1 996 by            suitable candidates drawn up by the selection board;
Alberto Maccaferri, of Bologna ( Italy ), represented by
Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of             misuse of powers, in that it is apparent, according to the
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg          applicant, that the real motive for the exchange of posts at
at the office of Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue Glesener .                  issue was the recruitment as a temporary staff member at
                                                                     grade B 1 of a candidate chosen in advance, although the
                                                                     requirements of the service compelled the Commission to
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         conclude a contact for services with a private undertaking in
                                                                     order for the applicant to be made available to it,
— annul the decision not to appoint the applicant to the
     post which was the subject of selection procedure               breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
     62T/XXIII/93 with a view to filling the post of A4/5            expectations. Both the applicant and the other successful
     temporary staff member in Directorate-General XXIII             candidates in selection procedure 62T/XXIII/93 could
     — ' Enterprise Policy, Distributive Trades, Tourism and         legitimately expect the post which was the subject of
     Cooperatives ', sector for implementation of                    competition to be filled by the recruitment of one of
     administrative simplification in the Community,                 them .
— annul the decision to transfer the budgeted post of a
     temporary staff member at level A4/5 from DG XXIII to
     another directorate general and to replace it with the
     budgeted post of a temporary staff member at level
     B,
                                                                     Action brought on 22 April 1996 by Livio Costantini
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                 against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                              ( Case T-57/96 )
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                                                ( 96/C 180/89 )
The applicant challenges the Commission's decision not to                            (Language of the case: Italian)
appoint him to an A5/A4 post in DG XXIII which was the
subject of selection procedure 62T/XXIII/93 despite his
having been included on the list of successful candidates . By       An action against the Commission of the European
a note from the Director of Directorate B, ' Community               Communities was brought before the Court of First
action to assist enterprises', the Director-General of               Instance on 22 April 1996 by Livio Costantini, an official in
DG XXIII was asked to 'take the appropriate steps' for him           the Commissions' scientific and technical services, working
to be recruited as quickly as possible . Nothing came of that        at the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna,
request .                                                            represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, Avvocato with right of
                                                                     appearance before the Corte di Cassazione of the Italian
                                                                     Republic , with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
The applicant observes that he entered the service of the            chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
 Commission in 1993 as a member of the auxiliary staff, and
that when his contract as an auxiliary staff member expired
he was recruited by a private company in order to be made            The applicant claims that the Court should :
 available to DG XXIII of the Commission to perform the
work he did as a member of the auxiliary staff.
                                                                     — annul the refusal to pay him the installation allowance
                                                                         and daily subsistence allowance,
The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in
 support of his application :                                        — declare that the Commission is required to pay him the
                                                                         sums payable under Articles 5 and 10 of Annex VII to
 breach of the rules for filling vacant posts and of the duty to         the Staff Regulations or such sums as may be arrived at
state reasons. In the procedure at issue it is apparent that the         by recalculation of his allowances in accordance with
 appointing authority exchanged the budgeted post which                  Article 38 of the Staff Regulations,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 180/38           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 6 . 96
— order that interest be paid on all the above sums at the          Action brought on 25 April 1996 by Jean-Louis Burban
    rate of 8 % from the date of the application to the time of                   against the European Parliament
     payment ,                                                                             ( Case T-59/96 )
                                                                                             ( 96/C 180/90 )
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                                   (Language of the case: Frencb)
Contentions       and   principal  arguments      adduced     in
support:                                                            An action against the European Parliament was brought
                                                                    before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                    Communities on 25 April 1996 by Jean-Louis Burban,
The applicant, an official in the Commission' scientific and        residing in Paris, represented by Jean-Pierre Spitzer, of the
technical services at the Joint Research Centre, Ispra ,            Paris Bar, with an adress for service at the Chambers of
maintains that it is unlawful to refuse to pay him the              Aloyse May , 31 Grand-Rue .
installation allowance and daily subsistence allowance on
his return from a period of external service with the
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna . The contested          The applicant claims that the Court should:
decision is based on the view that the applicant would              — award compensation in the sum of ECU 100 000 for the
neither encounter particular difficulties in resettling into the        material damage, and ECU 100 000 for the
environment which he had earlier left or nor need to effect
                                                                        non-material damage, suffered by the applicant,
removals again, having returned to his own dwelling in
Italy.                                                              — order the defendant to pay all of the costs .
According to the applicant, the provisions of the Staff             Pleas in law and main arguments:
Regulations concerning the installation allowance relate
only to the objective fact that the person concerned is             The applicant, a grade A 4 official of the European
obliged to change his place of residence in order to comply         Parliament, seeks reparation for the material and
with Article 20 of the Staff Regulations . The latter provision     non-material damage suffered by him by reason of the delay
lays down no further requirement and takes account of no            in drawing up his staff reports for the periods 1991 — 1992
other factor .                                                      and 1993—1994 .
                                                                    He considers that the defendant has not only breached the
It is true that the case-law has clarified the scope of the         principle whereby staff reports are to be drawn up on a
provisions of the Staff Regulations, but it has done so in          regular and periodic basis, but has also failed to adopt any
factual circumstances where legal preconditions were not            measure in lieu capable of remedying the absence of such
fulfilled ( failure to move house or be accompanied by              reports at the time when consideration of the comparative
members of one's family, transfers at one's own request and         merits of internal candidates took place .
for personal reasons, and so on ) or else in relation to
conduct intended to evade legal provisions . That case-law          The applicant draws attention in that regard to the
has nothing to do with this case, where the applicant and his       questionable nature of the only report, relating to 1989 , on
family both duly moved to another State, a residence was            the basis of which the appointing authority examined all of
rented in Austria and there was a compulsory transfer back          the applicant's applications from 1990 onwards . He
to Italy .                                                          contends that, in drawing up that report, the former head of
                                                                    the defendant's Information Office for France misused his
As regards the return to the applicant's dwelling in Italy,         powers as reporting officer, with a view to being replaced in
which involved a genuine financial sacrifice for the applicant      his post as Assistant Director not by the applicant, his
since — both because of the certain date of his return and the      natural successor, but by a personal friend outside the
legal difficulties of regaining possession of the dwelling in       European Parliament, by means of an external
Italy after renting it out — he had to bear throughout the          competition .
period in question the financial burdens and operating
expenses of two residences .
As regards the refusal to pay him the daily subsistence
allowance, the applicant maintains that the payment of such         Action brought on 30 April 1996 by José Francisco Meoro
allowances is based on the very circumstances described                    Avilés against Commission of the European
above, in other words a change of residence by an official in                                 Communities
order to comply with his obligations under Article 20 of the
                                                                                           ( Case T-61 /96 )
Staff Regulations . The only difference from the 'case of the
installation allowance lies in the fact that the daily                                       ( 96/C 180/91 )
subsistence allowance is paid until removal or for a
maximum period of six months . The difference is thus only a                      (Language of the case: Spanisb)
question of time .
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance on 30 April 1996 by José Francisco Meoro Avilés,