CELEX: C2002/247/29
Language: en
Date: 2002-10-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-226/02: Action brought on 26 July 2002 by André Hecq against Commission of the European Communities

C 247/18              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 12.10.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            —     order the Commission to pay him 8 % annual interest on
                                                                             those amounts, dating from 23 July 2002 until payment
—    annul the decision of 8 December 1998 of the Director-                  in full;
     General of DG DEV;
                                                                       —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—    in so far as necessary, annul the instructions attached to
     the note of 29 July 1999 from the Head of the ‘Human
     Resources’ unit of DG DEV;
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
—    annul the decision of 21 October 1999 of the Director-
     General of DG DEV;
                                                                       The applicant, a former Head of Unit, in Grade A3, requests
—    annul the decision of 22 December 1999 of the Director-           annulment of the Commission’s decision to reassign him as a
     General of DG DEV;
                                                                       counsellor and to entrust him with certain duties in that
                                                                       capacity. He also asks the Court to find that the Commission
—    annul the decision of 19 February 2001 of the Director-           is acting unlawfully by failing to reassign him in a middle
     General of DG DEV;                                                management post or to second him outside the institution in
                                                                       the interest of the service. In addition, he is requesting
—    annul the decision of 14 November 2001 of the Director            the annulment of his periodic report for 1999-2001 and
     of Directorate D of DG DEV, approved by its Director-             compensation for the material and non-material damage he
     General;                                                          has suffered.
—    annul his staff report for 1999-2001, drawn up on
     18 March 2002 by the Director of Directorate D of DG              In support of the forms of order sought, the applicant claims
     DEV;                                                              that the Commission infringed Articles 5(4) and 7 of the Staff
                                                                       Regulations, as well as Annex IV to the General Implementing
—    annul the decision by the External Service Steering               Provisions, of 10 March 1997, of Article 5(4) of the Staff
     Committee to reject his application for a post as Head of         Regulations, in that he was not assigned the functions or was
     Delegation under the 2002 rotation exercise, as well as           assigned functions which did not correspond to his post and
     the confirmation of that decision;                                grade. Moreover, he claims that the Commission infringed the
                                                                       principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate
                                                                       expectations in that not reassigning him in certain middle
—    annul the implied decision of 16 September 2001 to
                                                                       management posts and not seconding him outside the insti-
     reject his request of 16 May 2001;
                                                                       tution in the interest of the service went against promises,
                                                                       decisions and commitments made by the administration.
—    should they constitute a response to the request of
     16 May 2001, annul the decisions of 31 October and
     14 December 2001 by the Chef de Cabinet of the Vice-
     President of the Commission and of the Director-General
     of DG DEV;
—    establish the unlawfulness of the failure to reassign the
     applicant as Head of the ‘Indian Ocean’ unit of DG DEV
     by his Director-General in March 2000;
                                                                       Action brought on 26 July 2002 by André Hecq against
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
—    establish the unlawfulness of the failure to second the
     applicant, in the interest of the service, to the Spanish
     civil service in Madrid or to the FAO in Rome;                                            (Case T-226/02)
—    order the Commission to pay him, as compensation for
     non-material damage, the sum of EUR 10 000 assessed                                       (2002/C 247/29)
     ex aequo et bono;
                                                                                         (Language of the case: French)
—    order the Commission to pay him, as compensation for
     the damage to his career, a sum corresponding to the
     difference between the retirement pension and other
     benefits to which he is entitled under the second indent
     of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations on the date on             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     which he requests early retirement and the remuneration,          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     retirement pension and other benefits to which he would           European Communities on 26 July 2002 by André Hecq,
     be entitled if he could have retired from his post at the         residing in Mondercange (Luxembourg), represented by Lucas
     age of 65;                                                        Vogel and Dominique Amatulli, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- 12.10.2002             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 247/19
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Action brought on 26 July 2002 by Syndicat des Fonction-
                                                                       naires Internationaux et Européens against Commission
                                                                                        of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority on
      27 March 2002 and notified to the applicant on 16 April
      2002, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
      18 October 2001, adopting the decision of the Members                                     (Case T-227/02)
      of the Commission of 15 June 2001, ‘approving’ the
      alleged agreement of 4 April 2001 between Vice President
      Kinnock and the trade unions and staff associations
      concerning the resources available to the staff representa-                               (2002/C 247/30)
      tives and the rules regarding resources available to the
      staff representatives from 1 January 2002;
                                                                                          (Language of the case: French)
—     annul the abovementioned decision of 15 June 2001;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities on 26 July 2002 by Syndicat des
                                                                       Fonctionnaires Internationaux et Européens (SFIE), whose
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        main offices are in Brussels, represented by Lucas Vogel and
                                                                       Dominique Amatulli, lawyers.
The applicant is the secretary general of the Syndicat des
Fonctionnaires Internationaux et Européens (SFIE). He is
contesting the decision laying down the rules regarding                The applicant claims that the Court should:
resources available to the staff representatives from 1 January
2002 approving an agreement between certain union organis-
ations and the Commission. Not being a signatory to that               —     annul the decision of the appointing authority on
agreement of 4 April 2001, the SFIE was informed that it                     27 March 2002 and notified to the applicant on 16 April
would not be able to benefit from the budgetary facilities                   2002, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
under those provisions.                                                      18 October 2001, adopting the decision of the Members
                                                                             of the Commission of 15 June 2001, ‘approving’ the
                                                                             alleged agreement of 4 April 2001 between Vice President
                                                                             Kinnock and the trade unions and staff associations
                                                                             concerning the resources available to the staff representa-
In support of his application, the applicant pleads, first,
infringement of Articles 11 and 12 of the agreement entered                  tives and the rules regarding resources available to the
into by the Commission and the unions adopted on 20 Septem-                  staff representatives from 1 January 2002;
ber 1974. According to the applicant, the contested decision
merely approved the agreement of 4 April 2001, whereas the
said agreement had not been agreed to by all the unions and            —     annul the abovementioned decision of 15 June 2001;
could not therefore be regarded as effective.
                                                                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Secondly, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 24a of
the Staff Regulations, Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the framework
agreement of 20 September 1974, manifest error of assessment
and breach of the principle of non-discrimination. According
to the applicant, the effect of the agreement of 4 April 2001 is       Pleas in law and main arguments
that of sharing the financial and human resources necessary to
the running of the unions in accordance with the criteria of
representativity. The applicant claims that those criteria are
erroneous and arbitrary, since they favour unfairly certain
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments put forward in this case
unions and no longer allow unions freely to choose their own
political action.                                                      are identical with those in Case T-226/02.