CELEX: C2002/003/82
Language: en
Date: 2002-01-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-277/01: Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Romuald Stevens against Commission of the European Communities

5.1.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 3/47
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          on 26 October 2001 by Mély Garroni, residing in Rome,
                                                                         represented by Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.
The applicant is a freelance interpreter who has worked
regularly for the European Parliament since 1986. She has also           The applicant claims that the Court should:
worked regularly in the same capacity for the Commission. In
the course of the month in which she reached the age of 65,
the applicant was informed orally that the Commission had                —     annul the inter-institutional decision of the European
purportedly adopted a decision providing that, under a full                    Union, as referred to in the letter from G. Macario of
application of Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment of                   24 January 2001, rendering henceforth impossible for
Other Servants of the European Communities (CEOS), free-                       the European Parliament, as a result of the application of
lance interpreters could no longer be engaged beyond the age                   Article 78 CEOS, as amended, to retain or recruit freelance
of 65. In December 2000 the applicant learned informally that                  interpreters — such as the applicant — beyond the age
the European Parliament was obliged to apply that decision                     of 65 years;
with effect from 1 April 2001.
                                                                         —     in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the President
                                                                               of the European Parliament, contained in a letter of
The applicant, among others, lodged a complaint against the                    20 July 2001, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;
memorandum informing her of the inter-institutional decision
no longer to recruit freelance interpreters over the age of 65
years. The President of the European Parliament rejected that            —     consequently uphold the applicant’s right to continue to
complaint.                                                                     provide services to the European Parliament — or any
                                                                               other institution — beyond the age-limit of 65 years;
In support of her application, the applicant claims that                 —     order provisional payment of one euro to the applicant
Article 78 CEOS cannot be relied upon as a basis for a rule                    by way of compensation for the material and non-
setting the age of 65 years as a limit for freelance interpreters.             material damage suffered;
That provision is a derogation from the Staff Regulations and
refers to an agreement between the European Parliament, the              —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western European
Union. Article 78 makes no mention, either express or implied,
of Article 74 CEOS which provides for the termination of
auxiliary staff contracts; moreover, freelance interpreters do
not have a contract within the meaning of Article 74 CEOS.               Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant pleads, furthermore, breach of the principle of            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
non-retroactivity and of the principle of non-discrimination             relied upon in Case T-275/01 Alvarez Moreno v Parliament.
and of acquired rights, legitimate expectations, sound adminis-
tration and legal certainty. In addition to her claims for
annulment, the applicant also seeks compensation for the
material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.
                                                                         Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Romuald Stevens
                                                                             against Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Mély Garroni                                                (Case T-277/01)
                 against European Parliament
                                                                                                   (2002/C 3/82)
                        (Case T-276/01)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
                         (2002/C 3/81)
                   (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 26 October 2001 by Romuald
An action against the European Parliament was brought before             Stevens, residing in Bertem (Belgium), represented by Jean-
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- C 3/48                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.1.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —     order the defendant to pay compensation amounting to
                                                                              EUR 25 000 for non-material damage;
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 14 December
      2001 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary sanction          —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
      referred to in Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations,
      namely removal from post without reduction or with-
      drawal of entitlement to retirement pension;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement
                                                                        of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of the general
                                                                        provisions for the implementation of that article. The applicant
                                                                        pleads, moreover, numerous errors and contradictions con-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         tained in the staff report, lack of statement of reasons and
                                                                        breach of the rights of defence.
In support of his application, the applicant relies on Article 87
of the Staff Regulations and Article 7 of the Annex thereto.
According to the applicant, he was not given a proper hearing
during the disciplinary proceedings leading to the sanction in
question. Moreover, the applicant pleads breach of the obli-
gation to state reasons, manifest error of assessment and               Action brought on 5 November 2001 by Giorgio Lebedef
breach of the principle of proportionality.                                 against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                 (Case T-279/01)
                                                                                                  (2002/C 3/84)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Eric den Hamer
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                        (Case T-278/01)                                 European Communities on 5 November 2001 by Giorgio
                                                                        Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented
                                                                        by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in
                         (2002/C 3/83)                                  Luxembourg.
                  (Language of the case: French)                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul in part Decision No 3019 of 13 November 2000
                                                                              of the appointing authority, received on 17 November
                                                                              2000. More precisely, in so far as it awards BEF 25 000 to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     the applicant as compensation for the non-material
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    damage arising from the delay in drawing up his staff
European Communities on 26 October 2001 by Eric den                           reports for the periods 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997 and
Hamer, residing in Malines (Belgium), represented by Nicolas                  1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;
Lhoëst, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        —     award the applicant BEF 300 000 by way of damages to
                                                                              compensate for the non-material damage arising from
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   the delay in definitively drawing up his staff reports for
                                                                              the periods 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997;
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 6 December                —     award the applicant BEF 100 000 by way of damages to
      2000 definitively adopting the applicant’s staff report for             compensate for the non-material damage arising from
      1995/1997;                                                              the delay in definitively drawing up his staff reports for
                                                                              the periods 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;
—     annul the implied decision of the Commission not to add
      to the applicant’s personal file his two staff reports for        —     make an order as to costs, requiring the defendant to pay
      1995/1997;                                                              all costs, charges and fees.