CELEX: C1997/094/37
Language: en
Date: 1997-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 17 December 1996 by Enrico Palermo against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-212/96)

No C 94/16           lENl                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 3 . 97
Action brought on 12 December 1996 by Eberhard Eiselt                largesse whereby study missions have been granted to
   against the Commission of the European Communities                colleagues at the Centre.
                         Case T-208/96)
                          ( 97/C 94/36 )                             The applicant makes three arguments on the merits:
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                     — infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations by
                                                                          refusing to facilitate his professional development,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    — blatant discrimination against him in contrast with the
Instance of the European Communities on 12 December                      treatment accorded to other employees of the Centre,
1996 by Eberhard Eiselt of Ispra (Varese, Italy)                          and to one colleague in particular, and
represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with          the
right of audience before the Court of Cassation of         the
Italian Republic, with an address for service               in       — assignment of tasks in the graphics area and under­
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10          rue            utilization of the applicant's professional abilities in
Mathias Hardt.                                                           the photographic area in which he is a specialist.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision refusing the applicant leave to
     participate in a vocational training course, on grounds         Action brought on 17 December 1996 by Enrico Palermo
     of infringement of the third paragraph of Article 24 of           against the Commission of the European Communities
     the Staff Regulations and of the general principle of
     non-discrimination,                                                                     ( Case T-212/96 )
                                                                                                ( 97/C 94/37)
— declare unlawful the applicant's assignment to tasks
     for which he is not suited and for which he was not                             (Language of the case: Italian)
     originally employed, on the ground that the interests
     of the institution are not thereby served,
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
— order the Commission to pay the applicant damages of               Instance of the European Communities on 17 December
     ECU 10 000 ,                                                    1996 by Enrico Palermo, residing at Rome, a former
                                                                     official of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                     in receipt of an old-age pension, represented by Giuseppe
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            Marchesini, advocate with the right of audience before the
                                                                     Corte di Cassazione of the Italian Republic, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Ernest Arendt, 8—10 rue Mathias Hardt.
The applicant, who is a B-grade official at the Joint                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Research Centre at Ispra, states that he was originally
employed as a photographic specialist, having previously
worked exclusively in that area . When the applicant                 — declare unlawful, first of all, the provisions on which
brought an action before the Court of First Instance, by                 the contested act is based,
reason of circumstances arising in the department to
which he belonged, he was obliged to move to another
department, thereby losing part of his original functions.           — annul the applicant's pension statement for February
That, the applicant maintains, was because the                            1996 in respect of both the recovery of the alleged
Commission preferred to resolve the dispute by means of a                undue payments and of the weighting as applied,
compromise and a promotion. It is in that context that the
refusal to facilitate the applicant's further vocational
training through participation in a specialized                      — declare the Commission to be under an obligation to
photographic course at an institute in Zurich, which is the              take the appropriate measures with regard both to the
subject of this action, arose .                                          payments and the recovery subsequently made,
The applicant argues that the refusal is particularly                — order the Commission to pay interest at 8 % on the
unjustified because it stands in stark contrast with the                 sums due and to pay the costs of the proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 3 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 94/ 17
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Action brought on 23 December 1996 by Fabrizio Gillet
                                                                        against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                            ( Case T-2 15/96)
The applicant, a former Commission official, receives an                                       ( 97/C 94/38 )
invalidity pension on ground of serious illness. He is
resident in Italy but has elected to have his benefits paid in
the currency of the country where the institution in                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
question has its seat (third paragraph of Article 45 of
Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations ). His pension is thus
paid to him in Belgian francs, subject to the weighting              An action against the Commission of the European
provided for Italy.                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 23 December
                                                                      1996 by Fabrizio Gillet, residing at Rome, a former
In February 1996 his pension statement showed a large                official of the Commission of the European Communities,
reduction of the amount by comparison with that of the               in receipt of an old-age pension, represented by Giuseppe
preceding months. That reduction arose from a reduction              Marchesini, advocate with the right of audience before the
in the Italy weighting of 81,7% , with retroactive effect as         Corte di Cassazione of the Italian Republic, with an
from 1 July 1995 , pursuant to Council Regulation ( EC,              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Euratom, ECSC) No 2963/95 of 18 December 1995                        Ernest Arendt, 8—10 rue Mathias Hardt.
adjusting the remuneration and pensions of officials and
other servants of the European Communities and the
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
weightings applied thereto ( ! ).
                                                                     — declare unlawful, first of all, the provisions on which
The applicant claims first of all that Articles 82, 63 , and             the contested act is based,
64 of the Staff Regulations and Article 45 of Annex VIII
thereto have been erroneously and unlawfully applied. In
his view, the present case concerns a pension expressed              — annul the applicant's pension statement for February
and paid in Belgian francs. The rates of exchange referred                1996 in respect of both the recovery of the alleged
to in the second paragraph of Article 63 ( 2 ) were therefore            undue payments and of the weighting as applied,
not applicable. Accordingly, no weighting should have
been applied to the abovementioned rates of exchange .
The weighting for the country of residence of the recipient          — declare the Commission to be under an obligation to
should therefore have been applied to the pension                        take the appropriate measures with regard both to the
expressed in Belgian francs as it was before the variation               payments and the recovery subsequently made,
to which the second paragraph of Article 63 refers was
corrected .
                                                                     — declare unlawful the inclusion, when calculating the
                                                                         amount of the alleged amount owed, of sums relating
                                                                         to the period from 19 to 31 December 1995 and,
Moreover, even if it were shown in the present case that                 accordingly, order the Commission to pay to the
the reduction of the Italian weighting in the period under               applicant, by way of compensation, the nominal
consideration had only been the result of the devaluation                amount of one Belgian franc in lire at the rate in force
of the lira, as the appointing authority asserts, the                    at the time,
applicant maintains that the weighting should then have
been 100% because the currency of remuneration was the
Belgian franc, and therefore conversion of the amount,               — order the Commission to pay interest at 8 % on the
expressed in Belgian francs from the beginning, was                      sums due and to pay the costs of the proceedings.
inconceivable and thus any variation in the value of the
lira was irrelevant .
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant also points out that there was                         The applicant, a former Commission official, now receives
discrimination between those pensioners who elected                  an old-age pension. He is resident in Italy but has elected
payment of their benefits in the currency of their country           to have his benefits paid in the currency of the country
of origin and those who elected payment in the currency             where the institution in question has its seat (third
of the country where the institution in which they worked            paragraph of Article 45 of Annex VIII to the Staff
has its seat, to the detriment of the latter.                        Regulations ). His pension is thus paid to him in Belgian
                                                                     francs, subject to the weighting provided for Italy.
(') OJ No L 310, 22. 12 . 1995 , p . 1 .
                                                                     In February 1996 his pension statement showed a large
                                                                     reduction of the amount by comparison with that of the
                                                                     preceding months. That reduction arose from a reduction