CELEX: C1997/331/44
Language: en
Date: 1997-11-01 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 18 August 1997 by 'E' against the European Parliament (Case T-239/97)

1 . 11 97             I EN I                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 331 /21
     withdrawal of a            legal  measure     which     confers      Moreover, having made a report on the applicant's ability,
      individual rights .                                                 efficiency and conduct at the request of the members of
                                                                          the Joint Committee on Promotion, the applicant's
(') Case T-66/96 , Mellet v. Court of Justice ( OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 .       superior failed to put it in writing and submit it to him, to
     1996, p. 10 ).                                                       enable him to make observation and place it in his
                                                                          personal file .
                                                                          The applicant, who has suffered a state of anxiety and
                                                                          uncertainty for more than two years, has been deprived of
                                                                          an opportunity of having his candidature taken into
Action brought on 1 August 1997 by Christian Marion                       consideration, at the conclusion of a regular procedure,
          against the Economic and Social Committee                       for promotion to Grade C 4 . The assessor was obliged to
                          ( Case T-227/97)                                give reasons for his assessments, in order to allow the
                                                                          applicant to make observations and put forward pleas in
                            ( 97IC 331/43 )                               his defence .
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Finally, the applicant makes a damages claim for
                                                                          combined material and non-material damage .
An action against the Economic and Social Committee
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 August 1997 by Christian
Marion, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel
Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and Fran^oise
Parmentier, all of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson,
                                                                          Action brought on 18 August 1997 by 'E' against the
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.                                                                      European Parliament
                                                                                                 ( Case T-239/97)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                   ( 97/C 331 /44
— annul        the    decision     definitively   establishing   the
      applicant's staff report for the period 1992—1994,                                  (Language of the case: French)
— order the defendant to pay the applicant FB 250 000
      compensation for combined material and non-material                 An action against the European Parliament was brought
      damage,                                                              before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities on 18 August 1997 by 'E', represented by
                                                                           Claudine Junion, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                   service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges
                                                                           Liolos, 6 Rue J. A. Muller.
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
 The applicant, an official in Grade C 5 , alleges
 infringement of Articles 26 , 43 and 45 of the Staff
 Regulations, of Articles 6 and 7 of Decision 1001 /81 A of                — annul the decision of the European Parliament of
 the Economic and Social Committee laying down general                         5 November 1996, appointing the applicant to Grade
 provisions for implementing the Staff regulations as                          B 5 , Step 4,
 regards the periodic staff reports of officials, of the
 principle of sound administration, the duty to state
 reasons and the rights of the defence, and, finally, that                 — annul the decision impliedly rejecting the applicant's
 there has been a manifest error of assessment .                               complaint of 11 February 1997,
 He maintains that the Economic and Social Committee
 was at fault in taking 28 months to draw up his staff                     — order the European Parliament to reclassify the
 report for the period 1992 to 1994. By reason of that                         applicant as from the date of his appointment and
 fault, the Joint Committee on Promotion 1996 did not                          reconstitute his career bracket accordingly,
 have available the up-to-date staff report on the
 applicant's ability, efficiency and conduct for the
 promotion year 1996 .                                                     — order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 331 /22          1 EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    1 . 11 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    — annul the defendant's decisions :
The applicant claims that there has been an infringement
of Article 46 of the Staff Regulations, the purpose of                  — of 31 October 1996, consisting of a note prepared
which is to ensure the greatest possible continuity in the                   by J. P. Contzen, Director-General of the Joint
development of an official 's career. In his submission, the                 Research Centre, Ispra, refusing, first, to allow the
remuneration for Grade B 5 , Step 4 is lower than that for                   applicant to apply to the appeal assessor on the
Grade C 3 , Step 8 . He will therefore continue to be                        ground that the matter had been finally concluded
remunerated as an official of Grade C 3 , Step 8 until                       by the decision of 30 November 1995 awarding
promoted to Grade B 4, which does not represent                              the applicant the sum of BFR 90 000 in respect of
continuity in the development of his remuneration.                           non-material damage resulting from the absence
                                                                             and/or delay in the drawing up of his staff reports
                                                                             and, second, refusing the promotion of the
                                                                             applicant to grade A4 sought in point 2 of his
Moreover, the applicant does not enjoy financial                             request of 28 August 1996,
advantages, like officials who are not in the last step in
their grade .
                                                                        — implicitly rejecting the applicant's complaint
                                                                             against those refusals, which was submitted on
                                                                             20 January 1997 and registered on that date,
When the applicant took up his duties in 1982, in Grade
C 4, he was awarded additional seniority of 48 months in
accordance with Article 42 of the Staff Regulations. An             — order the defendant to pay compensation of BFR
                                                                         1 000 000 for the combined material and non-material
official appointed at the same time as the applicant with
additional seniority of 24 months, who was promoted at                  damage suffered by him, the said sum to be increased
the same time and who had passed the same competition,                  or decreased as appropriate during the course of the
had been at Grade C 3, Step 7 before his appointment to                 proceedings, together with compensatory interest
Grade B. When the two were both appointed to Grade                      running from 28 August 1996 , the date of the
B 5 , that official received the same remuneration as the               applicant's request,
applicant, even though the latter had 24 months more
seniority.
                                                                    — in any event, order the Commission to pay all the
                                                                        costs .
Finally, the applicant requests his reclassification in the         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
light of the 'Alexopoulou' judgment.
                                                                    The applicant pleads, first, infringement of the Staff
                                                                    Regulations, in particular Articles 9 ( 5 ), 26 and 43
                                                                    thereof, and breach of general principles of law, including
                                                                    in particular the principle of equality, which requires the
                                                                    administration to have regard for the welfare and interests
                                                                    of officials, and the principle that all administrative
                                                                    decisions   must   be   based  on  a   lawful   and    relevant
Action brought on 19 August 1997 by Luc Verheyden
   against the Commission of the European Communities               statement of reasons. According to the applicant, the
                                                                    appointing authority was wrong to rely on the previous
                       ( Case T-240/97 )                            award of compensation for the absence and/or delay in the
                                                                    drawing up of a staff report as a ground for refusing to
                         ( 97/C 331/45 )                            allow the applicant to apply for revision of his staff report
                                                                    on appeal ( such revision being concerned with the
                                                                    contents of that report, which was drawn up after
                                                                    adoption of the decision awarding compensation), and in
               (Language of the case: French)                       so doing it infringed the rules and principles relied on in
                                                                    this plea .
An action against the Commission of the European                    The second plea alleges infringement of the second
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   paragraph of Article 25 and of Articles 44 and 45 of the
Instance of the European Communities on 19 August                   Staff Regulations and failure to observe general principles
1997 by Luc Verheyden, residing at Angera ( Italy),                 of law such as the principles of equality and of the
represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an          protection of legitimate expectations. The applicant
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                complains that the defendant infringed the rules and
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.                            principles referred to in this plea by refusing to promote