CELEX: C2000/135/50
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-65/00: Action brought on 20 March 2000 by Angeliki Ioannou against the Council of the European Union

13.5.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 135/29
— breach of the principle of subsidiarity, in so far as the              Action brought on 20 March 2000 by ‘B’ against the
    possibility for the applicant to be entitled to such leave                    Commission of the European Communities
    requires an amendment to the Danish legislation on the
    matter.                                                                                       (Case T-66/00)
                                                                                                 (2000/C 135/51)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 20 March 2000 by ‘B’, of Tervue-
Action brought on 20 March 2000 by Angeliki Ioannou                      ren, Belgium, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise
          against the Council of the European Union                      Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
                         (Case T-65/00)                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — rule that the purported decision of 4 March 1999 is not in
                        (2000/C 135/50)                                      fact a decision, and consequently restore the applicant’s
                                                                             rights;
                                                                         — in the alternative, annul the decision to withdraw the
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             dependent child allowance awarded to the applicant for
                                                                             her son, and the decision to reduce her expatriation
An action against the Council of the European Union was                      allowance with effect from 1 September 1997; and
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 20 March 2000 by Angeliki Ioannou, resid-                 — in the alternative, annul the decision to withdraw the
ing in Brussels, represented by Jean van Rossum, of the Brussels             education allowance awarded to the applicant for her son
Bar.                                                                         with effect from 1 September 1997;
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— annul the Council’s decision of 21 May 1999 refusing
    to appoint the applicant a probationary official of the              The applicant challenges the decision to withdraw her depen-
    institution;                                                         dent child allowance and education allowance, and the
                                                                         appointing authority’s decision to recover part of the allow-
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  ances paid. The withdrawal of the allowances arose from the
                                                                         Opinion of the Heads of Administration No 188/89, of
                                                                         30 January 1990, of which the applicant was only able to take
                                                                         cognizance in February 1999, and which fixes an upper
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          income limit beyond which a child of a servant of the
                                                                         Communities may no longer be deemed to be a dependent
                                                                         child.
The applicant, a former employee of the Benelux Economic
Union assigned to the Secretariat responsible for implementing           In support of her claims, the applicants alleges:
the Schengen agreement, contests the appointing authority’s
refusal to appoint her a probationary official upon the                  — Infringement of the decision of 21 January 1998 concern-
integration of the Schengen Secretariat into the General                     ing the exercise of authority granted under the Staff
Secretariat of the Council.                                                  Regulations to the appointing authority, in so far as
                                                                             decisions to grant and withdraw the awards at issue were
                                                                             not taken by the same authority as that which applies
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:                              Article 85 of the Staff Regulations;
— infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations and             — Infringement of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff
    of the rights of the defence;                                            Regulations;
                                                                         — The inapplicability, or alternatively the illegality of the
— in the present case, a manifest error of assessment.                       Opinion of the Heads of Administration No 188/89;
                                                                         — Infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                         — Failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons, and