CELEX: C2002/233/47
Language: en
Date: 2002-09-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-198/02: Action brought on 28 June 2002 by "N" against Commission of the European Communities

28.9.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 233/25
—    Vice-President Kinnock is asked to enter into negotiations          The applicant claims that the Court should:
     with the trade unions/staff organisations and to propose
     for adoption by the Commission, before the end of March             —     allow the application;
     2002, a new framework agreement and to include in the
     series of amendments on which the trade unions and                  —     annul the contested measure;
     staff organisations are to be consulted an amendment
     providing for the opportunity to adopt electoral rules by
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay EUR 12 500 in respect of the
     way of a vote by the staff of the institution.
                                                                               material and non-material harm suffered by the applicant;
In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:                          —     order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs irrespec-
                                                                               tive of the outcome of the case.
—    clear intent to circumvent the judgment of the Court of
     First Instance of 22 November 2001 delivered in Case
     T-349/00 Lebedef v Commission;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—    infringement of the 1974 framework agreement and of
     the principle ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’;                     (1) Failure on the part of the defendant to comply with the
                                                                               judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-182/99
—    absence of any objective examination of the representativ-                by which the decision not to promote the applicant was
     ity of the trade unions/staff organisations and manifest                  annulled.
     error in the comparative assessment of that rep-
     resentativity;                                                      (2) Misuse of procedure.
—    infringement of the principle of non-discrimination;                (3) Misuse of powers.
—    infringement of the rights of the defence;                          (4) Unreasonable exercise by the defendant of its discretion
                                                                               in relation to promotions.
—    breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expec-
     tations;                                                            (5) Incorrect exercise of that discretion.
—    failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons;             (6) Sham re-examination of the applicant’s candidature for
                                                                               promotion.
—    failure to comply with the duty to have regard for the
     welfare and interests of officials;                                 (7) Superiority of the mark of the applicant, who was not
                                                                               promoted, vis-à-vis the marks of those promoted.
—    infringement of Article 24a of the Statute and of the
     principle of the freedom of trade union activity.                   (8) Liability for a wrongful act on the part of the defendant,
                                                                               causing the applicant material and non-material harm.
Action brought on 2 July 2002 by Georgios Karavelis
               against the European Parliament                           Action brought on 28 June 2002 by ‘N’ against Com-
                                                                                     mission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-197/02)
                                                                                                 (Case T-198/02)
                        (2002/C 233/46)
                                                                                                 (2002/C 233/47)
                   (Language of the Case: Greek)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
2 July 2002 by Georgios Karavelis, resident in Brussels,                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
represented by K. Tagaras, Lawyer, with an address for service           European Communities on 28 June 2002 by ‘N’, represented
in Luxembourg.                                                           by Nicola Lhoëst, lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/26              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.9.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 25 February                —      annul the Commission’s decision of 27 July 2001 refusing
      2002 imposing on the applicant the penalty provided for                   to classify the applicant in the higher grade of his career
      in Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations, namely                      bracket in accordance with Article 31(2) of the Staff
      removal from post without loss of entitlement to pension;                 Regulations;
—     annul any connected and/or subsequent decision;                    —      annul, in so far as is necessary, the express decision
                                                                                adopted by the Court of Auditors on 26 February 2002
—     order the Commission to pay to the applicant                              in which it rejected the complaint submitted by the
      EUR 12 500 by way of compensation for non-material                        applicant pursuant to Article 90(2) of those regulations;
      damage;
                                                                         —      order the Court of Auditors to pay all the costs of these
—     order the Commission to pay the entire costs.                             proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant was found guilty of a number of criminal                   The applicant in this case, a former official of the Commission
offences by the Cour d’Appel, Brussels. However, that court              and the Court of Auditors of the European Communities,
ordered a suspended sentence of 5 years subject to a number              contests the refusal of the appointing authority to classify him
of conditions in order to avoid affecting the applicant’s civic          in the higher grade of his career bracket at the time of his
status.                                                                  recruitment to grade B5 step 3, following his inclusion on the
                                                                         list of suitable candidates drawn up on the basis of competition
                                                                         No COM/B/340.
Subsequently, in view of the seriousness of the offences, the
Commission removed the applicant from his post without loss
of entitlement to pension.                                               In support of his claims, the applicant alleges that:
                                                                         —      substantive errors and manifest errors of assessment were
In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges lack of a                    made in respect of his professional qualifications, the
statement of reasons and breach of the rights of the defence.                   length and relevance of his professional experience with
Moreover, the applicant claims that the disciplinary measure is                 regard to the post to be filled, and the level of his
disproportionate to the seriousness of the effect of his conduct                remuneration in his successive positions;
on the institution and his work. Finally, the applicant alleges
infringement of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.          —      the obligation to state reasons was not observed.
Action brought on 28 June 2002 by Pierre Tomarchio                       Action brought on 2 July 2002 by The Sunrider Corpor-
against the Court of Auditors of the European Communi-                   ation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                              ties                                                                     Market
                        (Case T-201/02)                                                           (Case T-203/02)
                        (2002/C 233/48)                                                           (2002/C 233/49)
                  (Language of the case: French)                                             (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Court of Auditors of the European                  An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance               Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
of the European Communities on 28 June 2002 by Pierre                    European Communities on 2 July 2002 by The Sunrider
Tomarchio, residing in Nancy (France), represented by Nicolas            Corporation, represented by Mr Axel Kockläuner of Meissner,
Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.               Bolte & Partner in Munich, Germany.