CELEX: C2002/289/56
Language: en
Date: 2002-11-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-284/02: Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Triantafyllia Dionyssopoulou against Council of the European Union

C 289/30              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.11.2002
Action brought on 23 September 2002 by Gemeinschafts-                   infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expec-
kernkraftwerk Neckar GmbH against Commission of the                     tations. Moreover, the defendant caused the breakdown of the
                    European Communities                                contractual negotiations and thus infringed the principle of
                                                                        proper administration. The infringement of those principles
                                                                        caused a loss to the applicant in the amount of the sum
                        (Case T-283/02)                                 claimed.
                        (2002/C 289/55)
                  (Language of the Case: German)
                                                                        Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Triantafyllia
                                                                         Dionyssopoulou against Council of the European Union
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                        (Case T-284/02)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 September 2002 by Gemein-
                                                                                                 (2002/C 289/56)
schaftskernkraftwerk Neckar GmbH, Neckarwestheim (Ger-
many), represented by S. Zickgraf, lawyer.
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
—     order the defendant to pay to the applicant                       brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
      EUR 332 083,60 together with interest of 5,25 % since             Communities on10 September 2002 by Triantafyllia Dionys-
      12.6.2000 on the sum of EUR 328 782,43 and interest               sopoulou, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean A. Martin,
      of 5,25 % since 21.8.2000 on the sum of EUR 3 301,17;             lawyer.
—     order the defendants to pay the costs.                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the Council not to promote the
                                                                              applicant to Grade C 2 during the 2001 promotion
                                                                              procedure;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        —     order the Council to pay to the applicant EUR 300 000 to
                                                                              compensate her for all the damage suffered by her;
From September 1994 to July 1998 the applicant supplied
services in the context of the TACIS Programme at the                   —     order the Council to pay the costs.
Ukrainian atomic power station in Saporoshje. The parties had
concluded Direct Agreements in that regard. In order to
perform the contracts the applicant employed various experts
and appointed a project manager.                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        In support of her arguments, the applicant alleges manifest
According to the application, although the applicant was not            error of assessment in that the defendant has failed to take
contractually bound to appoint a project manager after August           into account, even in the alternative, the length of the
1998, the project manager provided ‘on-site-assistance’ at the          applicant’s period of service in her grade. The applicant alleges
Saporoshje nuclear power station from August 1998 to                    moreover that the defendant failed to observe Article 5 of the
December 1999. The experts also continued to work on the                Staff Regulations in that there is a contradiction between the
individual projects in Saporoshje. Already in April 1998 the            applicant’s skills and her being kept at her grade. According to
parties were negotiating on the conclusion of a fourth contract,        the applicant, the defendant has also failed to observe the
which, however, was ultimately not concluded.                           resolutions adopted by the Joint Committee of 16 July 1993
                                                                        inasmuch as the defendant took into account the actual
                                                                        number of days worked by the applicant and the number of
The applicant claims that it has suffered a loss in the amount          days taken as sick leave. Finally, the applicant points out that
of the sum claimed as a result of a non-contractual situation           the Staff Regulations require that officials be respected and, if
and that the defendant is required to compensate that loss in           necessary, helped and also lays a duty on the employer to have
accordance with Article 288(2) EC. By promising that the                regard for officials’ welfare. In the present case, the applicant
applicant would obtain a contract or payment from another               is the victim of harassment with the result that progress in her
source, the defendant created an expectation in the applicant           career has been hindered.
which caused it to work for the defendant without a contract.
By ultimately not fulfilling that expectation, the defendant