CELEX: C2001/275/25
Language: en
Date: 2001-09-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-153/01: Action brought on 4 July 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez Moreno against Commission of the European Communities

29.9.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 275/11
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     assess the right of Fedon and order the Community to
      pay compensation of LIT 4 432 590 743 or such other                The applicant, a European Central Bank employee, is the father
      sum as the Court may consider reasonable, subject to the           of two sons. He applied for an education allowance in
      possibility of adjustment for the duration of the obligation       respect of his sons’ attendance at an international school. The
      to pay additional duties, plus interest at the Italian             defendant refused that application, referring to the fact that
      statutory rate from the time of actual payment by Fedon            the applicant did not satisfy the conditions for receiving the
      to the American customs administration of 95,4 % of the            allowance since he was not entitled to an expatriation allow-
      value of the goods (increased duties), until settlement,           ance of 16 %.
      plus interest for delay of 8%, in accordance with Com-
      munity case-law, in the event of delay in paying the sum           The applicant submits that the refusal to grant the education
      claimed;                                                           allowance is contrary to Treaty rights conferred on him and in
                                                                         particular infringes the duty owed by the defendant to have
—     order the Community to pay the costs.                              regard for his interests.
                                                                         He also submits that Article 19(i) of the Conditions of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Employment offends against the principle of equal treatment.
                                                                         The defendant has acknowledged in Article 9(c) of the
                                                                         Conditions of Employment that it is obliged to observe that
The applicants, which export spectacle cases to the United               principle. An education allowance under Article 19 of the
States, claim damages for loss following the adoption by the             Conditions of Employment is granted only to employees who
United States of certain retaliatory commercial measures                 already satisfy the conditions for the grant of an expatriation
affecting their industry.                                                allowance. Therefore, two categories of employees, namely
                                                                         employees who meet those conditions and employees who do
                                                                         not, are treated differently. The unequal treatment would be
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in              objectively justified only if the aim of the expatriation allow-
Case T-69/00 FIAM and FIAM Technologies v Council and                    ance were identical to that of the education allowance, which
Commission (1).                                                          is not the case. The aims of the allowances are fundamentally
                                                                         different, so that it is not justified to link the grant of an
                                                                         education allowance pursuant to Article 19(i) of the Conditions
(1) OJ C 135 of 13. 5. 2000, p. 30.                                      of Employment to the conditions for an expatriation allowance
                                                                         pursuant to Article 17.
Action brought on 6 July 2001 by Emanuele Nicastro
              against the European Central Bank                          Action brought on 4 July 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez
                                                                         Moreno against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                                         ties
                         (Case T-152/01)
                                                                                                 (Case T-153/01)
                         (2001/C 275/24)
                                                                                                 (2001/C 275/25)
                   (Language of the Case: German)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
on 6 July 2001 by Emanuele Nicastro, of Frankfurt am Main,               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
represented by Dr Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and Silvia             European Communities on 4 July 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez
Mittländer, Lawyers.                                                     Moreno, residing in Berlin, represented by Georges Vander-
                                                                         sanden and Dominique Dugois, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision by the European Central Bank to
      refuse him an education allowance for his two sons;                —     annul the decision taken by the defendant to apply an
                                                                               age limit set at 65 years to freelance interpreters and
—     order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.                        therefore to apply that age limit to her;
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   29.9.2001
—     make good the damage caused to the applicant provision-            Action brought on 10 July 2001 by Robert Walton against
      ally assessed at 1 euro;                                                 the Commission of the European Communities.
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                                                   (Case T-155/01)
                                                                                                  (2001/C 275/26)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                            (Language of the case: English)
The applicant is a freelance interpreter who has worked                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
regularly for the Commission since 1986. After her 65th birth-           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
day, the applicant noticed that the Commission no longer                 European Communities on 10 July 2001 by Robert Walton,
contacted her with new offers of work. Later, the Commission             residing in Oxford (UK), represented by Paul Harris of Monck-
informed the applicant of its decision no longer to engage               ton Chambers, London (UK).
conference interpreters over the age of 65 and thus no longer
to call on her services on that ground. According to the
Commission, that decision was taken after the Council adopted            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Regulation No 628/2000 (1) amending Article 78 of the
Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the Communi-               1.    Annul the Commission decision of 3 October 2000;
ties (CES).
                                                                         2.    Declare that that decision and/or the Commission’s letter
                                                                               of termination was unlawful and/or in breach of the
According to the applicant, the Commission gives Article 78                    notice of termination provisions in Article 5 of the
of the CES as the reason for its decision to make termination                  contract and/or Article 47 of the Conditions of Employ-
of the employment of freelance interpreters subject to                         ment of Other Servants of the European Communities;
Article 74 of the CES, and thus subject also to the age limit of
65 years. However, the applicant claims that Article 74 is               3.    Order the Commission to pay the applicant compen-
clearly not intended to govern the situation of freelance                      sation for breach of contract, and/or for breach of
interpreters. It is not feasible to consider that the engagement               Article 47 of the Conditions of Employment, in the
of an interpreter ceases as provided for by Article 74 ‘at the                 amounts referred to in the compensation section of this
end of the month in which the agent reaches the age of                         application;
65 years’, since such engagement could be reduced to a matter
of days. Any age limit in respect of the provision of services           4.    Order the Commission to pay to the applicant his costs;
by freelance interpreters can therefore be considered to be a                  and
condition which applies only in the event of recruitment of a
freelance interpreter. However, there is no statutory provision          5.    Take such further measures and grant such further relief,
regarding any age limit with regard to pursuit of their activities.            under the Statute of the Court of Justice and/or Rules of
                                                                               Procedure of the Court of First Instance, as may be
                                                                               necessary, just or equitable.
The applicant claims that to subject freelance interpreters who
provide their services to the Community institutions to an
age limit constitutes discrimination between those freelance
interpreters who provide their services to the Community                 Pleas in law and main arguments
institutions and those who do not.
                                                                         The applicant in the present case is a Chartered Engineer,
                                                                         specialising in power and nuclear projects, who in October
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads, moreover,                1999 was recruited by the Commission to set up in Research
breach of the principle of non-retroactivity, acquired rights,           Directorate-General XII a help desk for small and medium-
legitimate expectations, sound administration and legal cer-             sized enterprises involved with innovation and research.
tainty. In addition to her claims for annulment, the applicant
also seeks compensation for material and non-material damage
allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission’s decision.             The application seeks the annulment of the decision contained
                                                                         in a letter of termination, of 3 October 2000, which purported
                                                                         to ‘terminate [the applicant’s] employment’, ‘with effect from
(1) Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 628/2000 of                16.10.2000’.
    20 March 2000 amending Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC)
    No 259/68 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
    European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of             The applicant claims wrongful dismissal and states to that end
    Other Servants of the Communities (OJ L 76 of 25.3.2000, p. 1).      that:
                                                                         —     The commencement date of the contract was 1 November
                                                                               1999.