CELEX: C1997/054/43
Language: en
Date: 1997-02-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 27 November 1996 by Spyridoula Alexopoulou against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-195/96)

No C 54/26           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 2 . 97
Action brought on 28 November 1996 by Giorgio Lebedef                rules on the composition and functioning of the Staff
   against the Commission of the European Communities                Committee ( participation in ballots, arrangements for the
                       ( Case T- 192/96 )                            expression of voting intentions ).
                          ( 97/C 54/42 )                             The applicant considers that the decision amending the
                                                                     Rules of the Staff Committee, Luxembourg section, should
               (Language of the case: French)                        therefore have been annulled by the appointing authority.
                                                                     It is apparent from Article 9 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations of
An action against the Commission of the European                     Officials and , generally, from the organizational powers
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    exercised by each institution within its own sphere of
Instance of the European Communities on 28 November                  competence, and also from its duty to ensure that its
 1996 by Giorgio Lebedef, residing at Senningerberg                  officials are able freely to appoint their representatives in
( Luxembourg), represented by Gilles Bouneou, of the                 compliance with democratic rules, that the institutions are
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                       not only entitled to intervene on their own initiative where
Luxembourg at his Chambers, 15 avenue du Bois.                       they have doubts as to the regularity of elections to the
                                                                     Staff Committee but are in fact obliged to determine
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         complaints addressed to them in that regard. However, the
                                                                     Commission rejected the complaint lodged by the
— annul, wholly or in part, the general meeting of staff             applicant and thus refrained from taking the measures
    held in Luxembourg on 5 December 1995 , or                       required by the applicable provisions.
    alternatively rule that that meeting has not been
    concluded,
— annul , wholly or in part, the decision amending the
    Rules of the Staff Committee, Luxembourg section,
    adopted by the general meeting of staff of the                   Action brought on 27 November 1996 by Spyridoula
    Commission on 5 December 1995 , together with all                Alexopoulou against the Commission of the European
                                                                                               Communities
    measures taken pursuant to that decision,
                                                                                            ( Case T-195 /96 )
— annul all subsequent measures taken pursuant to those                                        ( 97/C 54/43 )
    Rules,
                                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the refusal
    contained in the decision of 28 August 1996,                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
— order the Commission to pay all the costs .                        Instance of the European Communities on 27 November
                                                                     1996 by Spyridoula Alexopoulou , residing in Brussels ,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  represented by Constantin Nikis, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
                                                                     Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
The applicant, a member of the trade union 'Action &
Defense — Luxembourg', contests the way in which the
general meeting in issue was conducted and the decision              The applicant claims that the Court should :
amending the Rules of the Staff Committee; he challenges
the Commission 's refusal to intervene, as characterized in          — annul the decision of the appointing authority of
the decision rejecting the complaint lodged by him . In                   8 January 1996 classifying the applicant in grade A7,
support of his application, he pleads infringement of                     step 5 , and implicitly refusing to appoint her to
Article 9 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and Annex II              grade A6 ,
thereto, and of Convention No 151 of 7 June 1978
concerning protection of the right to organize and                   — pay her the sum of BRF 250 000, subject to increase
procedures for determining conditions of employment in                    or decrease during the course of the proceedings, as
the public service, as well as the rules on the composition               compensation for the damage suffered as a result of
and functioning of the Staff committee adopted by the                     the loss of her chances of promotion to grade A5 ,
Commission on 27 April 1988 in the course of its 916th
meeting.                                                             — order the Commission to pay all the costs .
He maintains, first, that the general meeting was irregular          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
in several procedural respects and marked by a flagrant
disregard of the ethical rules concerning the holding of             The applicant, who was also the applicant in Case T-17/
meetings, and, second, that the electoral system prescribed          95 Alexopoulou v. Commission, disposed of by judgment
in the new Rules is unclear and lacking in transparency,             of 5     October    1995 ('), contests the refusal      of the
discriminates   between      electors on the  one   hand   and       appointing authority to appoint her to grade A6 . In her
candidates on the other, contains lacunae and breaches the           view, that refusal cannot constitute valid compliance with
fundamental principles of democratic elections ( secret              the said judgment, in which an initial decision classifying
ballots, equality of opportunity ) and the Commission                her in grade A7 was annulled .
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 2 . 97          ΓEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 54/27
She considers in that regard that the appointing authority            The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
misused its power of assessment in taking the view that               those previously relied on in Cases T-128/96 Lebedef v.
her extensive experience in the field in which she was                Commission (M and T-161 /96 Bosetti v. Commission ( 2 ).
established and her significant intellectual and human
qualities were not so exceptional as to justify appointment           (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 , p. 17.
to grade A6 .                                                         ( 2 ) Not yet published in the Official Journal .
According to the applicant, the contested decision
therefore infringes Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
as well as the 1983 decision on the criteria applicable to
appointment in grade and classification in step on
recruitment .                                                         Action brought on 2 December 1996 by Consorzio del
                                                                      Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano and Società Cooperativa
                                                                      Latteria Sociale Spadarotta ari against Commission of the
(>) [ 1995 ] ECR-SC 11-683 .                                                                European Communities
                                                                                                ( Case T-197/96 )
                                                                                                   ( 97/C 54/45 )
                                                                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 14 October 1996 by Giorgio Lebedef
   against the Commission of the European Communities                 An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                         ( Case T-196/96 )                            Instance of the European Communities on 2 December
                            ( 97/C 54/44 )                            1996 by Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano,
                                                                      whose registered office is at Reggio Emilia ( Italy ), and
                                                                      Societa Cooperativa Latteria Sociale Spadarotta arl, whose
                 (Language of the case: French)                       registered office is at Montecchio Emilia ( Italy ),
                                                                      represented by Fausto Capelli and Luigi Sordelli, of the
                                                                      Milan Bar, and Louis Schiltz, of the Luxembourg Bar, with
An action against the Commission of the European                      an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
Instance of the European Communities on 14 October
1996 by Giorgio Lebedef, residing at Senningerberg
( Luxembourg ), represented by Gilles Bouneou, of the                 The applicants claim that the Court should:
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at his Chambers, 15 avenue du Bois .                       — declare that the applicants have capacity to bring this
                                                                            action,
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          — annul Commission Decision ( 96/536/EEC ) of 29 July
                                                                             1996 ( ] ) in so far as it mentions in the Annex the
— annul the Commission's decision of 31 October 1995,                       German cheeses 'Kase von Typ Parmesan', ' Parmesan'
                                                                            and 'Duramont-Typ Parmesan',
— annul the refusal to admit the independent trade union              — order the Commission to pay all the costs of the
      'Action & Defense — Luxembourg' to the framework                      proceedings .
      agreement,
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— annul the prohibition against carrying on trade union
      activities during working hours and on the                      The applicants contest the inclusion of the names 'Kase
      Commission's premises,                                          von Typ Parmesan', ' Parmesan ' and 'Duramont-Typ
                                                                      Parmesan' in the list drawn up by the Commission of
                                                                      milk-based products in respect of which Member States
— order the Commission to pay all the costs .                         are authorized to grant individual or general derogations
                                                                      pursuant to Article 8 ( 2 ) of Directive 92/46/EEC ( 2 ) laying
                                                                      down the health rules for the production and placing on
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based
                                                                      products .
The applicant, secretary-general of the trade union 'Action
&c Defense — Luxembourg', contests in particular the                  According to the applicants, the designations of the
defendant's refusal to admit that trade union to the                  cheeses so protected constitute obvious imitation of the
framework agreement of 20 September 1974 concerning                   names of famous Italian cheeses . It should be noted in this
relations between the Commission and trade unions and                 respect that the term 'Parmesan' is the literal translation
staff associations .                                                  of the Italian term 'parmigiano'.