CELEX: C2005/057/55
Language: en
Date: 2005-03-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-486/04: Action brought on 13 December 2004 by Christos Michail against the Commission of the European Communities

5.3.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 57/32
            
         Action brought on 13 December 2004 by Christos Michail against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-486/04)
   (2005/C 57/55)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 December 2004 by Christos Michail, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Haralambos Meidanis, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the defendant's Decisions of 20 March 2004, impliedly rejecting the application for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations made by the applicant on 20 November 2003, and of 13 September 2004, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               make an appropriate order as to costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   On 20 November 2003, the applicant, a Commission official, made an application for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations alleging that he was the victim of mental harassment on the part of the administration of his institution. By his action, he seeks the annulment of the implied decision rejecting that application and the decision rejecting his complaint submitted under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
   The applicant claims that the defendant did not take action on his complaints regarding alleged irregularities in the verification and checking of Community joint financing but, on the contrary, precisely because of his complaints, adopted an attitude designed to intimidate him and to compromise his career. In support of his action, he relies on Articles 12a, 21a, 22b and 24 of the Staff Regulations, the provisions of the Financial Regulation, the principle of sound financial management and the protection of the financial interests of the Commission, the principle of fair and equal treatment of staff and a manifest error of assessment on the part of the Commission.