CELEX: C2000/079/83
Language: en
Date: 2000-03-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-11/00: Action brought on 18 January 2000 by Michel Hautem against the European Investment Bank

C 79/40               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.3.2000
    identifies the sudden, violent or abnormal event extraneous          31 January 1997 removing him from his post and ordered the
    to the applicant’s body, namely infection with the HIV               EIB to pay arrears of his remuneration which he should have
    virus in 1995. The committee’s views on the evidence of              received since his dismissal. The EIB appealed that judgment
    the precise cause of the infection are beyond its com-               of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Justice but it
    petence since that is a legal issue.                                 did not consider it relevant to make an application for interim
                                                                         measures, as it could have done, seeking a stay of execution of
(b) Error of law as to the criteria applied to the accident. The         the judgment in question.
    medical committee and the administration took the view
    that the concept of an accident within the meaning of
    Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and Article 2 of the             The EIB did not however uphold any request for a stay of
    Rules required that the event should not be the result of a          execution of the judgment submitted to it by the applicant; it
    freely assumed risk or be unforeseeable, in other words,             moreover made it very clear in its appeal that it did not
    that there should not be any fault or intention associated           consider itself at all required to enforce the judgment of the
    therewith, even though the wording of Article 2 of the               Court of First Instance. The EIB therefore arrogated to itself a
    Rules defining the term accident contains no such con-               power which the law does not provide for, namely, that of
    ditions; they are, rather, included in Articles 4 and 7 on           deciding the appropriateness of complying with a judgment of
    the circumstances in which cover is excluded.                        the court without however taking account of other interests,
                                                                         in particular the harm suffered by the applicant.
(c) Manifest error of appraisal, in that all the conditions for an
    accident provided for in Article 2 of the Rules were met.
                                                                         The applicant argues that failure to comply with the judgment
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance constitutes, on the part of the
                                                                         EIB, a serious failure to fulfil its oblations and misuse of powers
                                                                         and that that conduct by the EIB is causing him extremely
                                                                         serious and irreversible non-material damage inasmuch as it is
                                                                         such as to cast doubts on his professional ability and standing.
Action brought on 18 January 2000 by Michel Hautem
            against the European Investment Bank
                         (Case T-11/00)
                         (2000/C 79/83)
                                                                         Action brought on 20 January 2000 by Serena Angioli
                                                                         and Others v Commission of the European Communities
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                                   (Case T-18/00)
An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                     (2000/C 79/84)
on 18 January 2000 by Michel Hautem, residing in Schouweil-
er (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) represented by Michel Karp
and Joëlle Choucroun, of the Luxembourg Bar, 84 Grand-Rue.
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— order the Bank to pay him by way of reparation for                     ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    non-material damage caused by its failure to comply                  European Communities on 20 January 2000 by Serena Angi-
    with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                  oli, Claudia Delloye-Lemoine, Ann Perks, Geneviève Courtay
    28 September 1999 or, in the alternative, its refusal to             and Claude Gaspart, resident in Brussels, represented by Eric
    comply with it, the sum of EUR 20 000 or any other                   Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
    greater amount which this Court might deem equitable;                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
                                                                         Rheinsheim.
— order the Bank to pay the costs.
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         — annul the decisions of Roger Fry, head of unit at DG IX,
                                                                              addressed to Ms Courtay 23 March, Ms Delloye on 18 May
The applicant points out that, in its judgment of 28 September                and the other applicants on 31 May 1999 terminating
1999 in Case T-140/97, the Court of First Instance annulled                   their contracts on 30 June 1999 and annulling the renewal
the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of                         date of each applicant’s contract, namely 30 June 1999;