CELEX: C1997/054/57
Language: en
Date: 1997-02-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 24 December 1996 by Lut Fabert-Goossens against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-217/96)

No C 54/34           EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 2 . 97
Action brought on 18 December 1996 by Giorgio Lebedef              Action brought on 23 December 1996 by Bernard
   against the Commission of the European Communities               Connolly against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                  Communities
                      ( Case T-213/96 )
                                                                                                 Case T-2 14/96 )
                         ( 97/C 54/55 )
                                                                                                   ( 97/C 54/56 )
                                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
An action against the Commission of the European                   Instance of the European Communities on 23 December
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   1996 by Bernard Connolly, residing at Everberg ( Belgium ),
Instance of the European Communities on 18 December                represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre-Paul Van
1996 by Giorgio Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg                 Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
( Luxembourg ), represented by Gilles Bouneou, of the              in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                     Fort Rheinsheim .
Luxembourg at his Chambers, 15 avenue du Bois .
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
The applicant claims that the Court should :                       — order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of
                                                                          Bfrs 750 000 as compensation for the damage caused
                                                                          by the facts giving rise to the action,
— order the Commission to pay Giorgio Lebedef                      — order the Commission to pay the costs .
    compensation of Bfrs 100 000 or such other sum as
    the Court may think fit,
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   The applicant, who is the same as in Cases T-203/95 ('),
— reserve to the applicant the right to increase his claim         T-34/96 ( 2 ) and T-163/96 (•*), alleges that the Commission
    during the proceeding and as may appear appropriate,           has waged a particularly harsh campaign against him
                                                                   concurrently with disciplinary proceedings, following the
                                                                   publication of his book The rotten heart of Europe: The
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                           dirty war for Europe 's money. He considers that this
                                                                   campaign was based on insults, abuse and defamation;
                                                                   that is to say, on conduct incompatible with any
                                                                   behaviour appropriate to rational , active administration .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   In support of his claims, the applicant merely states that
                                                                   the facts that do not have the nature of decisions but
The applicant, who is Secretary-General of the union               which caused this action to be introduced constitute a
'Action & Defense — Luxembourg', seeks to appeal                   breach of the second paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff
against the decisions refusing the representatives of that         Regulations for which the defendant institution must incur
union time off work and the necessary means ( invitations,         liability.
essential information, travel and subsistence expenses ) to
enable them to attend meetings of the trade unions or staff        O OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 16 .
associations and the Commission relating to general staff          ( 2 ) OJ No C 133 , 1 . 5 . 1996 , p. 32 .
matters, in particular in respect of the meetings of               (') OJ No C 370 , 7. 12 . 1996 , p . 18 .
8 January 1996, the contact committee of 17 January
1996 and the concerted political planning of 2 February
1996 , brought forward to 1 February 1996 .
                                                                   Action brought on 24 December 1996 by Lut Fabert­
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges breach of          Goossens against the Commission of the European
Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, of the decision of the                                       Communities
Council of 23 June 1981 establishing a consultation
procedure, failure to comply with general principles of law                                    ( Case T-217/96 )
and general principles of trade union law recognized by                                           ( 97/C 54/57 )
decisions of the Community judicature and Convention
No 151 of the General International Labour Conference .                              (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 2 . 97           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 54/35
Instance on 24 December 1996 by Lut Fabert-Goossens,                  unlawful . She also complains that there was no specific
resident in Blanden ( Belgium), represented by Marc-Albert            examination of her experience and alleges a manifest error
Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for service in               of assessment .
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 rue de
Nassau .                                                              In the further alternative, she challenges the decision to
                                                                      grade her in grade A 7 in post 50/T, when her grading
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          should have been at least in A 6/3 , alleging absence of a
                                                                      statement of reasons, breach of the second sentence of the
                                                                      second paragraph of Articles 25 and 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff
principally,                                                          Regulations and of the first paragraph of Article 2 of the
                                                                      Commission 's Decision of 1 September 1983 , breach of
— annul or declare unlawful the Commission 's decision                the duty to have regard for the interests of officials and
     not to recruit the applicant to post No 71/T/TFRH/93 ,           manifest error of assessment, and complaining of the
                                                                      unfair effect on her carreer.
— annul      the   Commission 's    decision   to   recruit the
     applicant to post 50T7XVI/93 ,
in the alternative,
                                                                      Action brought on 26 December 1996 by Paul Hodson
— annul the Commission's decision to grade the                           against the Commission of the European Communities
     applicant in grade 7 in post 50T/XVI/93 , when she                                      ( Case T-218/96 )
     should have been graded in grade A 5/3 ,
                                                                                                97/C 54/58 )
in the further alternative,
                                                                                      (Language of the case: French)
— annul the Commission's decision to grade the                        An action against the Commission of the European
     applicant in grade 7 in post 50T/XVI/93 , when she               Communities was brought before the Court of First
     should at least have been graded in grade A 6/3 ,                Instance of the European Communities on 26 December
                                                                      1996 by Paul Flodson, residing at Brussels, represented by
at all events,                                                        Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for
                                                                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn,
                                                                      21 rue de Nassau .
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      — annul the appointing authority's decision on
The applicant, a member of the Commission's temporary                      12 December 1995 classifying the applicant in grade 7,
staff in grade A 7/3 , had, moreover, worked as a member
of the temporary staff in grade B in DG XVI since 1989 .              — annul the appointing authority's decision of
According to her staff report, the tasks entrusted to her                  26 September 1996 rejecting the applicant's
would normally have been performed by an official in                       administrative complaint No R/416/96 of 3 April
grade A. In 1993 the Commission published several                          1996 against that decision,
recruitment notices for category A, relating inter alia to
posts 71/T/TFRH/93 with the 'Human Resources,                         — order the Commission to pay the costs .
Education, Training and Youth' Task Force and 50T/XVI/
93 in DG XVI. The applicant's name was on the list of
suitable candidates for both those posts . The applicant has          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
already lodged a complaint against the Commission's
decision not to recruit her to post 71 /T and its decision to         The applicant, an official of the Commission in grade A 7/
grade her in grade 7 for post 50/T.                                   3 , challenges in particular the classification decision of the
                                                                      appointing authority of 12 December 1995 and requests a
                                                                      more favourable classification under Article 31 ( 2 ) of the
In the present application the applicant further claims that          Staff Regulations so that the appointing authority may
the failure to recruit her to post 71 /T was unlawful and             take into account his professional experience and
that there was an infringement of the rules relating to               qualifications . He claims that the grounds on which it is
withdrawal of administrative acts giving rise to rights.              based are not stated since the Commission did not
Moreover, the administration did not carry out a specific             respond to his specific and exact arguments with regard to
examination of the applicant's experience .                           the exceptional nature of his qualifications in comparison
                                                                      with the post for which he was engaged. Rather, the
In the alternative, the applicant maintains that her grading          Commission merely relied, in this regard, on altogether
in grade A 7 in post 50/T, when it should have been in                general arguments. It did not state why, in this case, the
A 5/3 pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 2 of the            qualifications claimed by the applicant could not be
Commission's Decision of 1 September 1983 , was                       considered to be exceptional . The two contested decisions