CELEX: C2003/200/47
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-200/03: Action brought on 6 June 2003 by Annelies Keyman against the Commission of the European Communities

C 200/26             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       23.8.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is an official at the Commission. He worked                The applicant in this case contests the appointing authority's
from 1992 to 2000 in Brussels. In 2000 he was transferred to             decision to dismiss her for inadequate performance.
Luxembourg and then on 1 September 2001 he was trans-
ferred back to Brussels, where he moved back into the house
in which he had previously lived.                                        In support of her claims, she pleads breach of Article 51 of
                                                                         the Staff Regulations since she could not in the circumstances
                                                                         have been found to be in any way incompetent, breach of the
The applicant alleges infringement of Article 5(1) of Annex VII          duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, misuse of
to the Staff Regulations. In his view, he and his family did in          powers, breach of the right to an inter partes hearing at the
fact move their family residence to his place of service in              time of the administrative inquiry, and disregard of the obliga-
Luxembourg. His transfer back to Brussels cannot therefore be            tion to state reasons and of the principles of proportionality
regarded as a return to his family residence.                            and good administration.
The applicant submits that, under Article 85 of the Staff                Finally, the applicant pleads that the principle of equal treat-
Regulations, recovery of a payment is justified only if the              ment has been infringed since similar cases have been treated
recipient was aware that there was no due reason for the                 differently.
payment or if the fact of the overpayment was patently such
that he could not have been unaware of it. In the applicant's
opinion, he was entitled to assume that the payment was
justified as the Commission, in full knowledge of the facts,
had decided to grant the installation allowance.
Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of
equal treatment of staff members. Installation allowance is
                                                                         Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
payable to a staff member not entitled to the household
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
allowance but not to a staff member entitled to the household
allowance whose family have not yet settled at that staff
member's place of service.                                                                       (Case T-203/03)
                                                                                                 (2003/C 200/48)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 6 June 2003 by Annelies Keyman                         An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 10 June 2003 by Lars Bo
                        (Case T-200/03)                                  Rasmussen, residing in Hellerup (Denmark), represented by
                                                                         Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                         bourg.
                        (2003/C 200/47)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                  (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                         —     annul Commission Decision No 34988 of 1 July 2000;
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                  —     annul the decision of 21 January 2003 rejecting the
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   complaint;
European Communities on 6 June 2003 by Annelies Keyman,
resident in Overijse, Belgium, represented by Carlos Mourato,            —     order the defendant to repay the sums wrongfully recov-
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                             ered on the basis of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations
                                                                               together with interest for late payment;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the applicant 10 000 EUR in
                                                                               damages or any other amount, even greater, that the
—     annul the appointing authority's decision of 10 March                    Court may decide is equitable in compensation for the
      2003 to dismiss her;                                                     non-material damage sustained;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              —     order the defendant to pay the costs, expenses and fees.