CELEX: C1999/366/63
Language: en
Date: 1999-12-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-222/99: Action brought on 5 October 1999 by Jean-Claude Martinez and Charles de Gaulle against the European Parliament

18.12.1999            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 366/29
Harm                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments
1. Loss of income due to cancelled and lost bookings                    The applicant contests the finding that her absences were
                                                                        unlawful, submitting that:
    a) Cancelled bookings
                                                                        — the Council infringed Article 59(3) of the Staff Regulations
    b) Lost bookings                                                         in refusing to request the Invalidity Committee to deter-
                                                                             mine the validity of the medical certificates submitted by
                                                                             the applicant as evidence that her absences were caused by
2. Loss of income by reason of reduction of the price of the                 illness; and
    services offered
                                                                        — the Council is in breach of its obligations to give reasons
3. Harm resulting from the increased burden on the budget                    for its decisions and to respect the rights of the defence, in
    for financing the construction of new ships, by reasony of               that it has failed to produce any information of a medical
    interest due on additional borrowing                                     nature which would enable the doctor treating the appli-
                                                                             cant to understand the reasons which have led the medical
4. Lower profits by reason of loss of income in future seasons               officers checking the certificates submitted to question
    and of clientele.                                                        their validity.
                                                                        As regards the disciplinary action, the applicant points out
                                                                        that this was taken following her refusal to undergo periodical
                                                                        medical examinations. She emphasises in this connection that
                                                                        she was acting on the advice of her own doctor who believed
                                                                        that such examinations might have a deleterious effect on her
                                                                        health, a view which, according to the applicant, was recently
                                                                        confirmed by the Invalidity Committee’s decision of 23 March
                                                                        1999 finding her definitively incapable of performing her
Action brought on 30 September 1999 by Gitte Rasmus-                    duties in view of the seriousness of the illness afflicting her.
         sen against Council of the European Union                      The applicant argues that she is not in breach, therefore, of the
                                                                        Staff Regulations and that, consequently, the decision to take
                       (Case T-221/99)                                  disciplinary action lacks legal foundation and, at the very least,
                                                                        is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
                       (1999/C 366/62)
                                                                        Lastly, the applicant maintains that, by requiring her to
                                                                        undergo medical examinations deleterious to her health, the
                                                                        Council acted in dereliction of its duty on a number of counts,
                  (Language of the case: French)                        thereby incurring liability.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 30 September 1999 by Gitte Rasmussen,
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-
Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.                              Action brought on 5 October 1999 by Jean-Claude Marti-
                                                                        nez and Charles de Gaulle against the European Parliament
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                  (Case T-222/99)
— annul the Council decision declaring that the applicant’s
    absences between 28 September 1998 and 18 March 1999                                          (1999/C 366/63)
    were unlawful;
— annul the Council’s decision to issue the applicant with a                                 (Language of the case: French)
    written warning by way of disciplinary action;
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
— order the Council to make a token payment to the                      the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
    applicant of one euro by way of compensation for the                on 5 October 1999 by Jean-Claude Martinez, residing at
    non-physical damage suffered;                                       Montpellier (France), and Charles de Gaulle, residing in Paris,
                                                                        represented by François Wagner, of the Nice Bar, 2 Rue de la
— order the Council to pay the costs.                                   Poissonnerie, Nice.
 ---pagebreak--- C 366/30                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18.12.1999
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                    — the contested interpretation infringes fundamental
                                                                                    rights, by disregarding the right to freedom of associ-
— annul the decision of the European Parliament dated                               ation and the principle of equal treatment.
    14 September 1999 concerning the interpretation of the
    Rules of Procedure;
— declare the interpretation of Rule 29(1) of the Rules of
    Procedure proposed by the Committee on Constitutional
    Affairs and the Rules of Procedure to be contrary to the
    Community legal order, the rule of law, the founding
    principles of the Union and fundamental rights.                        Action brought on 26 October 1999 by Marie-Josée
                                                                                   Bollendorff against the European Parliament
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (Case T-260/99)
The applicants, who are Members of the European Parliament,                                         (1999/C 366/64)
state that on 19 July 1999 the constitution of the ‘Groupe
Technique des Députés Indépendants (TDI) — Groupe mixte’
was communicated to the President of the Parliament, in                                       (Language of the case: French)
accordance with Rule 29 of the Parliament’s Rules of Pro-
cedure. At the plenary sitting on 20 July all the political groups         An action against the European Parliament was brought before
opposed the creation of that mixed group. The Committee on                 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Constitutional Affairs and the Rules of Procedure was therefore            26 October 1999 by Marie-Josée Bollendorff, resident in
called upon to provide an opinion on the conformity of that                Bertrange, Luxembourg, represented by Laurent Mosar, of the
new group with Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure. It                    Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
proposed an interpretation to the effect that it is not possible,          at his Chambers, 8 Rue Notre-Dame.
within the meaning of that rule, to accept the constitution of a
group which openly denies possessing any political character
and the existence of any political affinities between its                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
members. On 14 September 1999 the matter was submitted
to a vote of the Parliament, which, by a simple majority,                  — annul the decision by which the appointing authority held
adopted the interpretation proposed by the Committee. It is                    her absence from 9 March 1999 to 12 March 1999 to be
that decision of the Parliament which is contested in the                      unauthorised and deducted 28.50 working hours from her
present case.                                                                  annual leave;
                                                                           — in the alternative, in so far as is necessary annul the express
In support of their action, the applicants advance two pleas in                decision of the European Parliament, notified on 26 July
law:                                                                           1999, rejecting her complaint under Article 90(2) of the
                                                                               Staff Regulations;
(a) T h e d i s c r i m i n a t o r y n a t u r e o f t h e c o n -
    tested decision:                                                       — order the European Parliament to pay the applicant the
                                                                               sum of LUF 100 000 by way of damages for non-pecuniary
    — the contested interpretation necessarily involves                        harm;
         unequal treatment, inasmuch as it has the effect of
         denying the Members concerned the administrative                  — order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
         advantages and the benefit of being able to participate
         in the work of the Parliament which are conferred by
         membership of a Parliamentary group;                              Pleas in law and main arguments
    — the contested interpretation diverges from most Euro-                The applicant disputes that her absences were improper,
         pean legislative systems and parliamentary practices.             contending:
(b) F a i l u r e t o r e s p e c t t h e C o m m u n i t y ’ s            — that the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff
    legal order and the rule of law in the                                     Regulations has been infringed in that the defendant did
    substantive sense of the term:                                             not notify her of any decision withdrawing days of leave;
    — the contested interpretation violates the general prin-              — that her right to a fair hearing has been infringed in that
         ciple of legal certainty, in that it is manifestly contrary           she was not asked to explain her conduct, in particular as
         to the spirit of the Rules of Procedure and fails to                  regards her failure to attend the medical examinations. Nor
         observe the principle of the protection of legitimate                 should the validity of the medical certificate produced by
         expectations, which has crystallised around the pro-                  her have been denied without her first undergoing a
         vision in question over the last twenty years;                        medical examination;