CELEX: C1996/233/37
Language: en
Date: 1996-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 14 June 1996 by Catherine Presle against the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (Case T-93/96)

10 . 8 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 233/21
principles of equality of treatment between candidates and           The applicant argues, first, that in view of the special needs
of the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of          of the service for which he was appointed, it was necessary
officials . The administration is bound, therefore, to ensure        to recruit a candidate with proven professional experience
that the tests are held in a regular manner and, in the event        enabling him to be immediately operational. The applicant
that an irregularity or incident is found to have occurred, to       maintains that those special needs justify the application of
draw up a report for the competition selection board .               Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations and, consequently, his
                                                                     own recruitment to grade C 4 .
The applicant maintains that, since in the present case the
administration has failed to establish that she did not hand         Secondly, the applicant argues that, in assessing the
in the form containing her answer to thé third written test in       professional experience of the candidates in application of
the competition, that form must be deemed to have been               paragraph IV 'conditions of employment' of the notice of
handed in . She considers that, having failed to produce any         competition, the appointing authority acted contrary to the
evidence to the contrary, the defendant cannot refuse to             principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, and
admit her to the second part of the written tests on the             in breach of its duty to protect legitimate expectations, by
ground that she did not take part in all the tests in the first      using different criteria in the case of the first two persons
part .                                                               placed on the list of suitable candidates (who were recruited
                                                                     to grade C 4 ) from those applied in the applicant's case .
The applicant accordingly pleads that the contested decision
was adopted in breach of the duty to have regard for the             Lastly, the applicant asserts that the contested decision is
welfare and interests of officials and the right to a fair           vitiated by the failure to state relevant reasons or, at the very
hearing, and that it is vitiated by a manifest error.                least, failure to give sufficient reasons, in so far as the
                                                                     Parliament did not disclose the criteria used by the
                                                                     appointing authority to assess whether the applicant's
                                                                     qualifications warranted an appointment to the higher
                                                                     grade in his career bracket.
Action brought on 13 June 1996 by Roberto Monaco
               against the European Parliament
                        ( Case T-92/96 )
                          ( 96/C 233/36 )                            Action brought on 14 June 1996 by Catherine Presle against
                                                                     the European Centre for the Development of Vocational
                                                                                            Training ( Cedefop )
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                              ( Case T-93/96 )
                                                                                                ( 96/C 233/37 )
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 13 June 1996 by Roberto Monaco,                                       (Language of the case: German)
residing at Capellen ( Luxembourg ), represented by
Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of             An action against the European Centre for the Development
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg          of Vocational Training ( Cedefop ) was brought before the
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.             Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                      14 June 1 996 by Catherine Presle, of Berlin, represented by
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalt, of Deringer Tessin Herrmann
                                                                     &C Sedemund, 13 Place des Barricades, Brussels .
— annul the Parliament's decision of 22 August 1995 in so
     far as it appoints the applicant to grade C 5 ,                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
— order the Parliament to pay the costs .                            — annul the decision of the Director of the European
                                                                          Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       ( Cedefop ) of 22 May 1996 ,
The applicant entered the service of the European                    — order the European Centre for the Development of
Parliament in 1980 as a skilled employee in grade D 3 and                 Vocational Training ( Cedefop ) to pay the costs .
was subsequently promoted to grade D 2 ( in 1982 ) and then
to grade D 1 ( in 1991 ). He took part in open competition           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
PE/115/C, organized for the purpose of constituting a
reserve for the recruitment of clerical assistants ( grades C 4      The applicant is an official of the European Centre for the
and C 5 ), and was placed third on the list of successful            Development of Vocational Training ( Cedefop ), the seat of
candidates . By decision of 25 August 1995 , he was                  which was moved on 1 September 1995 from Berlin to
appointed to grade C 5 in the clerical assistant career              Thessaloniki . In the course of the implementation of the
bracket. He contests that decision, maintaining that he               accompanying measures adopted for the organization of the
should have been appointed to grade C 4 .                             social aspects of the move , employees who were unable for
 ---pagebreak--- No C 233/22            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10 . 8 . 96
personal reasons to move with the Centre to Thessaloniki              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
were offered the possibility of secondment for a limited
period of time . Those employees included the applicant,
who, owing to her personal and family situation , was                 The Directive which is the subject of the present action
placed, initially for 10 months, at the disposal of the               provides, inter alia, that the telecommunication
Representative Office of the European Parliament in Berlin .          infrastructures available to operators other than
The applicant states that her husband works as a                      telecommunications organizations should be liberalized
self-employed lawyer and that they have been living,                  from 1 July 1 996 , ahead of the date set for full liberalization ,
together with their two children aged two and six, in Berlin .        1 January 1998 . Furthermore , the Directive provides that
Her application for an extension of her secondment beyond             the burden arising from the provision of universal service
30 June 1996 was rejected by the contested decision of the            obligations should be borne by the undertakings providing
Director of Cedefop of 22 May 1996 . That decision , which            public telecommunications networks .
was notified to the applicant on 29 May 1996 , required her
to take up her duties on 1 July 1996 with the European
Centre for the Development of Vocational Training                     The applicant is the only firm which enjoys in Italy exclusive
( Cedefop ) in Thessaloniki .                                         rights in the field in question, which must be abolished
                                                                      according to the contested Directive , conferred on it by an
By her action , the applicant is seeking the annulment of the         Agreement concluded in 1984 with the Minister for Post
contested decision of 22 May 1996 . She complains , first, of         and Telecommunications . It is also the only undertaking
the refusal to extend her secondment in Berlin and seeks an           which provides a public telecommunications network and,
extension of her temporary secondment there until such                as such , is the only one concerned by the national scheme
time as she is able to avail herself of the interinstitutional        concerning provision of universal service obligations .
mobility afforded by Article 29 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the Staff              Moreover, the latter obligations are significantly more
Regulations of officials . In addition , she complains of the         onerous for the applicant than in other Member States
order requiring her to take up her duties with the European           inasmuch as the particular oreography of Italy requires the
Centre for the Development of Vocational Training                     setting up and maintenance of special operations in order to
( Cedefop ) in Thessaloniki on 1 July 1996 .                          be able to offer to all citizens a voice telephony service at an
                                                                      affordable price .
The further pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
those in Case T-85 /96 .
                                                                      In the view of the applicant, the contested Articles should be
                                                                      annulled on the grounds of their inadequate statement of
                                                                      reasons, lack of competence of the Commission under
                                                                      Article 90 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty, abuse of process ,
                                                                      infringement of the principle of proportionality between the
Action brought on 17 June 1996 by Telecom Italia SpA                  objective pursued and the means used to attain it,
  against the Commission of the European Communities                  infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the
                                                                      protection of legitimate expectations, infringement of the
                         ( Case T-96/ 96 )                            general principle of institutional balance and, finally,
                           ( 96/C 233/38 )                            infringement of the fundamental right to property,
                                                                      enshrined in the European Convention on Human
                (Language of the case: Italian)                       Rights .
An action against the Commission of the European                      The applicant maintains in particular that :
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 1996 by
Telecom Italia SpA, whose registered office is in Turin ,             — the defendant has infringed the provisions laid down by
                                                                          the Council in its resolutions on the timetable for
represented by Mario Siragusa , of the Rome Bar, Giuseppe
Scassellati-Sforzolini , of the Bologna Bar, and Matteo Bay,              liberalization and encroached on the powers of the
of the Milan Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg               Council itself and the European Parliament under
at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen .                             Article 100a of the EC Treaty on the harmonization of
                                                                          the financing scheme of universal service costs ,
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      — only Article 86 and Regulation 17/62 should be applied
— annul      Article    2     (2 ) of  Commission      Directive          with regard to the conduct of undertakings rather than
    96/1 9/EC ( 1 ), inasmuch as it provides for the early                Article 90 which, by definition, concerns State
                                                                          measures ,
    liberalization of alternative infrastructures , and
    Article 4c thereof inasmuch as it requires Member States
    to establish a financing scheme of universal service              — there are other means of attaining the objectives of the
    obligations to be entrusted exclusively to undertakings               Commission , either by the full liberalization of the
    providing telecommunications networks ,                               telecommunication markets , in particular by amending
                                                                          Directive 92/44 , applying Article 86 to those
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                  undertakings found to be abusing their position, or by