CELEX: C1997/181/43
Language: en
Date: 1997-06-14 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Suzanne Smets against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-107/97)

14 . 6 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 181 /21
Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Cornelis Volger
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                                against the European Parliament
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                                                       ( Case T-108/97 )
                                                                                                   ( 97/C 181 /44 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission 's decision of 18 June 1996                                       (Language of the case: French)
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                       An action against the European Parliament was brought
     Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                          before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities on 11 April 1997 by Cornelis Volger,
— annul , in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   residing at Heffingen, Luxembourg, represented by Jean­
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                      Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange.
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                  — annul the decision of 3 September 1996 assigning him
Case T-16/97 0 ).                                                            non-active status as from the evening of 31 January
                                                                             1996 , and
O OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                        — order the Parliament to pay the costs .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Suzanne Smets                        The applicant has already contested the appointing
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   authority's decision of 1 December 1995 , notified by letter
                         ( Case T-107/97 )                              of 27 December 1995 , by which he was assigned non­
                                                                        active status backdated to 30 November 1995 and granted
                           ( 97/C 181 /43 )                             the allowance provided for in Annex IV to the Staff
                                                                        Regulations ( Case T-176/96 (')).
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                        In the present case, the applicant is challenging the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       decision of the President of the European Parliament of
Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 1997                   3 September 1996, that the moment on which the decision
by Suzanne Smets, residing in Brussels, represented by                  to assign him non-active status is to take effect as from
Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for                the evening of 31 January 1996 and that the allowance
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn,                  provided for in Annex IV to the Staff Regulations is to be
21 Rue de Nassau .                                                      granted.
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            The applicant submits that, by not communicating the
                                                                        contested decision to him until seven months after it came
— annul the Commission's decision rejecting her request                 into force, the Parliament has failed to comply with its
     to be regraded,                                                    obligation under Article 25 of the Staff Regulations to
                                                                        communicate at once any decision adversely affecting an
— annul the Commission's                decision   rejecting  her       official . He further argues that such decision cannot
     administrative complaint,                                          produce any retroactive effect without infringing the
                                                                        principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation .
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                        In addition, he claims, the decision to assign him non­
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     active status was adopted in infringement of Article 41 of
                                                                        the Staff Regulations and of the duty to have regard for
                                                                        an official 's interests, and took no account of his personal
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                  interests .
Case T- 16/97 ( M.
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                        C ) OJ No C 388 , 21 . 12 . 1996 , p . 10 et seq.