CELEX: C2001/186/25
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-95/01: Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Gérard Goget, Pierre Huge and Emmanuel Gabolde v Court of Auditors of the European Communities

C 186/16              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     30.6.2001
In support of her claim the applicant alleges:                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—    Infringement of the selection notice, of essential pro-            The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the
     cedural requirements, and of the rules governing the               ECB of 25 September 2000 refusing her the benefit of an
     operation of selection boards (principle of independence);         educational allowance, and the decisions of the ECB of
                                                                        21 December 2000, rejecting the appellant’s administrative
—    The existence, in casu, of a manifest error of assessment;         review, and of 20 February 2000, rejecting the appellant’s
                                                                        grievance.
—    Breach of the obligation to provide reasons;
—    Infringement of the principle of transparency;                     The educational allowance was refused to the applicant on the
                                                                        basis of Article 19 of the Conditions of Employment of the
                                                                        staff of the ECB. According to that article, members of the staff
—    Infringement of the principle of equal treatment.
                                                                        of the ECB who are entitled to an expatriation allowance of
                                                                        16 % are also entitled to an educational allowance for each
                                                                        dependent child until the establishment of a European school
                                                                        in the Frankfurt area. The applicant has the German nationality
                                                                        and is therefore not entitled to an expatriation allowance.
                                                                        According to the ECB she is for this reason also not entitled to
                                                                        an educational allowance for her oldest child.
                                                                        The applicant claims:
                                                                        —     that this difference in treatment between staff members
Action brought on 27 April 2001 by Astrid Hirsch against                      entitled to an expatriation allowance and those who are
                 the European Central Bank.                                   not entitled to an expatriation allowance, is unjustified
                                                                              and therefore constitutes a breach of the principle of non-
                                                                              discrimination.
                         (Case T-94/01)
                                                                        —     that the administration has failed in its obligation of
                                                                              due care since it has not taken into consideration the
                        (2001/C 186/24)                                       applicant’s situation.
                  (Language of the case: English)
An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 27 April 2001 by Astrid Hirsch, resident in Germany,                 Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Gérard Goget, Pierre
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of                  Huge and Emmanuel Gabolde v Court of Auditors of the
DeBacker Association, Brussels (Belgium).                                                   European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (Case T-95/01)
—    annul the decision of the European Central Bank of                                          (2001/C 186/25)
     25 September 2000 refusing the applicant the benefit of
     the education allowance and therefore the reimbursement
     of the tuition fees that the applicant has to pay for                                 (Language of the case: French)
     the attendance of her son at the Internationale Schule
     Frankfurt and, if necessary, annul the decisions of the
     European Central Bank of 21 December 2000 rejecting                An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
     the applicant’s administrative review and of 20 February           Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
     2000 rejecting the applicant’s grievance;                          on 4 May 2001 by Gérard Goget, residing in Hettange-Grande,
                                                                        France, Pierre Huge, residing in Bonnevoie, Grand Duchy of
—    order the ECB to reimburse the tuition fees amounting to           Luxembourg, and Emmanuel Gabolde, residing in Metz,
     EUR 11 370,00 for the school year 2000-2001 and of                 France, represented by the lawyer André Soulier, with an
     future tuition fees for the future school years, with an           address for service in Luxembourg.
     interest of 8 % per year from 1 of September of each year
     until the due payment, and order the ECB to reimburse              The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:
     the installation fees amounting to EUR 5 922 with an               —     Annul the decision of 22 February 2001 with all the
     interest of 8 % per year from 1 of September 2001;                       consequences in law;
—    order the ECB to pay the costs.                                    —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 30.6.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 186/17
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                        (2) the decision of the selection board for that compe-
                                                                                    tition, as recorded and notified to the applicant by
The applicants oppose the appointment, with effect from                             the defendant’s letter of 17 October 2000 under
1 July 2001, of the new Secretary General of the Court of                           reference number 2556, to give the applicant a fail
Auditors.                                                                           mark in the abovementioned fresh oral test and not
                                                                                    to include him on the list of successful candidates;
In support of their claim, they rely on the following pleas:
                                                                              (3) the defendant’s reply of 20 February 2001 rejecting
—     Legal errors in the vacancy notice for the post in that,                      the administrative complaints under reference num-
      whilst the vacancy notice indicated that the successful                       bers R/502/00 and R/627/00 submitted by the
      candidate would be paid on the basis of salary scale A1,                      applicant against the first two contested measures
      the Court subsequently envisaged proposing that the post                      referred to above;
      at issue should be an ‘unclassified’ post. Moreover, the
      condition regarding relevant experience and the condition
                                                                              (4) all other related enforceable measures of the
      concerning ability to assume responsibility for manage-
                                                                                    defendant;
      ment of an organisation with numerous staff do not meet
      the requirements of precision and accuracy.
                                                                         —    order payment of compensation amounting to
—     Manifest error of assessment of criteria in that, in                    EUR 50 000 for the material and non-material harm
      particular, the Court used grade A6/A7 as the basis for                 caused to the applicant by the abovementioned measures;
      calculating the requisite 15 years’ experience.
—     Infringement of procedure in the selection of candidates           —    order the defendant to pay the costs.
      in that none of them was called to an interview even
      though such an interview was provided for in the vacancy
      notice.
                                                                         Grounds for annulment and main arguments
—     Manifest error of assessment in the choice of the success-
      ful candidate.
                                                                         The applicant’s allegations against the defendant are as follows:
                                                                         Claim for annulment
Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Christos Gogos against                   —    Infringement of Article 233 EC, independently and in
       the Commission of the European Communities                             conjunction with the infringement of the principle of
                                                                              equal treatment and of the rules governing the operation
                         (Case T-97/01)                                       of selection boards:
                        (2001/C 186/26)                                       (a)   the method chosen by the defendant for complying
                                                                                    with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                                    23 February 2000 was inconsistent with Article 233
                                                                                    EC (and with the abovementioned principle and
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                    rules);
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     (b) it would have been lawful to comply with the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                          judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 Febru-
European Communities on 4 May 2001 by Christos Gogos,                               ary 2000 by including the applicant on the list of
assistant administrator at the Commission, represented by                           successful candidates without fresh tests:
Professor Kharis Tagaras, Lawyer, Sagia Chambers, Likavit-
tou 5, Athens 106 72.
                                                                                    (i)   the argument arising from the judgment of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                               Court of First Instance of 23 February 2000;
—     annul:                                                                        (ii) rebuttal of the defendant’s submissions that
      (1) the decision of the appointing authority of the                                 entry on the list of successful candidates with-
            defendant, as recorded and notified to the applicant                          out a fresh oral test is contrary to Community
            by letter of 30 June 2000 under reference num-                                law;
            ber 1847, to invite him to a fresh oral test in internal
            competition COM/A/17/96 following the annulling                         (iii) the applicant’s general performance in the
            judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 Febru-                          tests in competition COM/A/17/96 and the
            ary 2000 (Case T-95/98);                                                      principle of proportionality;