CELEX: C2000/079/86
Language: en
Date: 2000-03-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-23/00: Action brought on 27 January 2000 by A against Commission of the European Communities

18.3.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 79/41
— annul under the last paragraph of Article 8 of the con-                — order the defendant to pay, by way of making good his
    ditions applicable to other servants (CAOS), so far as                    material and non-material damage, damages in an amount
    necessary, the legal classification of the applicants’ con-               to be set by the Court;
    tracts since in reality each of them constitutes a renewal of
    a contract for an indefinite period under Article 2(a) CAOS;         — order the defendant to pay the costs.
— annul the express decision refusing the applications
    brought by the applicants; and
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         The applicant claims, first of all, that the contested decision is
                                                                         vitiated by a total absence of reasons, which is contrary to the
Pleas in law and main argument                                           second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                 The applicant claims, moreover, that the principle patere legem
advanced by the applicants in Case T-137/99 (1).                         quam ipse fecisti was infringed inasmuch as the contested
                                                                         decision does not comply with the rules which the Director of
                                                                         Cedefop had imposed on himself in his decision of 12 Nov-
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999, p. 38.                                        ember 1992, on provisions and criteria for the promotion of
                                                                         members of staff at the Centre.
Action brought on 24 January 2000 by David Crabbe
against European Centre for the Development of
                Vocational Training (Cedefop)                            Action brought on 27 January 2000 by A against Com-
                                                                                     mission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-21/00)
                                                                                                   (Case T-23/00)
                          (2000/C 79/85)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 79/86)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against European Centre for the Development of                                    (Language of the case: French)
Vocational Training (Cedefop) was brought before the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 January
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
2000 by David Crabbe, residing in Perea-Thessaloniki, rep-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
resented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an
                                                                         European Communities on 27 January 2000 by A, residing in
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Thewes
                                                                         Saint-Hubert (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, of the
& Reuter, 33 Rue des Capucins.
                                                                         Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         Chambers of Christian Kremer, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop not to
    promote him to grade A 5 or LA 5 in the 1998 promotion
    procedure, as evidenced by his memorandum of 12 May                  — annul the express decision of 4 November 1999 (notified
    1999 publishing the list of promoted officials;                           on 28 October 1999) rejecting the complaint lodged by the
                                                                              applicant on 22 July 1999 with the appointing authority
— annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop impliedly                     challenging it’s decision of 23 April 1999 ordering against
    rejecting his administrative compliant of 14 June 1999                    the applicant the disciplinary measure of removal from
    against the earlier decision, deemed to have been taken on                post, without reduction or withdrawal of entitlement to
    14 October 1999 by operation of the second indent of                      retirement pension;
    Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations in the absence of a
    reply to that complaint four months after it was lodged;             — order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/42                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18.3.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Removal from the register of Case T-317/97 to T-508/97 (1)
The applicant, who has been found guilty of a criminal offence                                    (2000/C 79/88)
by the courts, contests the disciplinary measure of removal
from post ordered against him or her by the appointing
authority.                                                                                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In support of his or her arguments, the applicant claims that:            By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Third
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
— the general principles applicable to disciplinary procedures            Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
    and, specifically, to the rights of the defence were infringed.       Case T-317/97 to T-508/97: David Manuel Abreu and Others
    The applicant takes the view in his respect that the decision         v Council of the European Union and Commission of the
    in question emanates specifically from the Director General           European Communities.
    for Personnel and the Administration who, as such, had
    initiated the disciplinary procedure and drawn up the
    report for the Disciplinary Board, despite forming part of            (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
    the Disciplinary Committee himself. It is contrary to the
    abovementioned principles that a single body should
    combine the duties of a judge, set proceedings in motion
    and carry out the inquiry preceding the hearing. Moreover,
    throughout the disciplinary proceedings, the applicant’s
    request that they be made public was systematically
    refused.
                                                                                 Removal from the register of Case T-125/98 (1)
— the decision ordering the disciplinary measure was arbi-
    trary in nature or, at least contained a manifest error of                                    (2000/C 79/89)
    assessment inasmuch as, since it considered the conduct of
    which the applicant stood accused to have been proved,
    the Disciplinary Board, and subsequently the appointing                                  (Language of the case: French)
    authority, restricted themselves to referring to the judg-
    ment made by the Belgian criminal courts, whereas it is for
    the disciplinary authorities to verify for themselves whether         By order of 7 December 1999, the President of the Fifth
    the conduct with which the applicant is charged is proven.            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
— the Disciplinary Board was not properly constituted since               Case T-125/98: Luc Veron v Commission of the European
    some of the members called upon to participate in the                 Communities.
    appointing authority’s opinion had not been able to take
    an active part in all the debates.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case T-96/96 (1)
                                                                                 Removal from the register of Case T-189/98 (1)
                          (2000/C 79/87)
                                                                                                  (2000/C 79/90)
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 31 January 2000, the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Second
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-96/96: Telecom Italia SpA (anc. Società Finanziaria                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Telefonica per Azioni) v Commission of the European Com-                  Case T-189/98: Commune de Sassuolo v Commission of the
munities.                                                                 European Communities.
(1) OJ C 233 of 10.8.1996.                                                (1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.