CELEX: C1998/137/42
Language: en
Date: 1998-05-02 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 5 March 1998 by Giuliano Pagliarani against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-40/98)

2.5.98                   EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 137/19
Action brought on 5 March 1998 by Sadam Zuccherifici                   Ð annul the decision of the appointing authority of
Divisione della Seci, Sadam Castiglionese Spa, Sadam                       8 December 1997 rejecting the applicant's complaint
Abruzzo Spa, Zuccherificio del Molise Spa and SocietaÁ                     through official channels lodged pursuant to
Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola Sfir Spa v. Council of the                 Article 9(2) of the Staff Regulations inasmuch as it
                          European Union                                   does not take account of certified professional
                           (Case T-39/98)                                  experience,
                            (98/C 137/41)
                                                                       Ð order the defendant to pay BEF 2 130 849,
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       Ð order the defendant to pay legal interest, which the
                                                                           applicant requests to be applied at the rate of 8 % per
An action against the Council of the European Union was                    annum from 13 May 1993 until the date on which the
brought before the Court of First Instance on 5 March                      Court gives judgment in the case,
1998 by Sadam Zuccherifici Divisione della Seci, Sadam
Castiglionese Spa, Sadam Abruzzo Spa, Zuccherificio del
Molise Spa and SocietaÁ Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola                Ð order the defendant in any event to pay the entire
Sfir Spa, represented by Vincenzo Cerulli Irelli, Gualtiero                costs.
Pittalis and Giancarlo Fanzini, of the Bar of Teramo,
Bologna and Forlì Cesena, with an address for service in               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Luxembourg at the chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22,
rue Marie AdeÂlaïde.                                                   The applicant, employed on 13 May 1993 as a member of
                                                                       the temporary staff, contests the decision classifying him,
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance                  claiming that Articles 31 and 32 have been wrongly
should:                                                                applied. According to the applicant, the appointing
                                                                       authority did not take account of his overall professional
Ð annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2613/                  experience of 24 years and 1 month either on recruitment
     97 of 15 December 1997,                                           or in its decision to reject the appeal made through official
                                                                       channels. Moreover, the appointing authority did not take
                                                                       account of the university training and the specific
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       professional experience in the naval field which the
                                                                       applicant was able to offer within DG XIV.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       Secondly, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 7 of
The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                 the Staff Regulations and discriminatory treatment as
are the same as those in Case T-38/98 ANB and Others v.                between officials inasmuch as he covered for duties of a
Council (1).                                                           higher grade than his own, and worked with colleagues
                                                                       who are classified in Grade B 1, step 1.
(1) See page 18 of this Official Journal.
                                                                       Finally, the appointing authority failed in its duty to have
                                                                       regard for the interests of officials and to protect the
                                                                       legitimate expectations of the applicant by looking only to
                                                                       the interests of the service without considering those of
                                                                       the applicant.
Action brought on 5 March 1998 by Giuliano Pagliarani
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                           (Case T-40/98)
                            (98/C 137/42)
                                                                       Action brought on 9 March 1998 by the Netherlands
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             Antilles against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                 Communities
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                                               (Case T-41/98)
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 March 1998                                            (98/C 137/43)
by Giuliano Pagliarani, residing at Brussels, represented by
Mario Spandre, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierre Thielen,
21, rue de Nassau.
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Instance of the European Communities on 9 March 1998
                                                                       by the Netherlands Antilles, represented by P. V. F. Bos
Ð annul the decision of the appointing authority                       and M. M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an
     inasmuch as, on appointing him to the temporary                   address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
     staff, it classified the applicant in Grade B 3 step 3,           Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue Goethe.