CELEX: C1999/314/28
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-194/99: Action brought on 30 August 1999 by Cristiano Sebastiani against the Commission of the European Communities

30.10.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 314/13
would not automatically have become inapplicable on the                 Action brought on 30 August 1999 by Cristiano Sebasti-
introduction of the euro. Nor could the decision of the Board           ani against the Commission of the European Communities
of Directors of 23 February 1999 have given the abolition of
the mechanism retroactive force by ‘confirming’ a non-existent                                  (Case T-194/99)
decision of the Management Committee. It would follow
that the mechanism remained applicable in principle to the
remuneration of all the staff at the Bank. On that hypothesis,                                  (1999/C 314/28)
the applicants submit that it would be appropriate for the
Court to annul their January payslips in so far as these contain
no element relating to the application of the mechanism, and                              (Language of the case: French)
to order the Bank to reinstate the mechanism and to continue
to apply it.                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 30 August 1999 by Cristiano
If, however, the Court takes the view that such a decision was          Sebastiani, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël
actually taken, the applicants state that it is unlawful and            Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the
should be annulled on the following grounds:                            Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
1. The decision was adopted without proper consultation of              The applicant claims that the Court should:
     the official Staff Representatives as required by Article 24
     of the Staff Regulations.                                          — annul the Commission’s decision not to promote him
                                                                            to Grade A 6 in the context of the 1998 promotions
                                                                            operation;
2. The decision is based on an error of law such to alter its
     essential character and hence:
                                                                        — order the Commission to pay the costs.
     — the decision taken was ultra vires the Management
         Committee;                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant challenges the appointing authority’s refusal to
     — the Management Committee failed to give due con-                 promote him during the 1998 promotions operation.
         sideration to all the matters relevant to a decision of
         the kind in question; and
                                                                        In support of his claim, the applicant pleads:
     — the procedure followed by the Management Committee               — infringement of Articles 26, 43 and 45 of the Staff
         was unlawful.                                                      Regulations,
                                                                        — infringement of the rights of defence,
3. The decision violates a right enjoyed by members of the
     staff under their contracts of employment with the Bank,           — breach of the principles of equality of treatment, good
     such rights having either                                              administration and entitlement to reasonable career pros-
                                                                            pects, and
     — been incorporated by mutual consent into individual              — breach of the obligation to state reasons.
         contracts of employment; or
                                                                        The applicant states that his personal file did not, on the date
     — arisen through the operation of the principle of                 of comparative assessment of the merits of the candidates for
         acquired contractual rights which is known, in some            promotion to Grade A 6 in the context of the promotions
         form, to the employment law of most of the Member              operation in question, contain any report on the work he had
         States and which applies to the contracts of employ-           done as an administrator.
         ment of Bank staff by virtue of Article 44 of the Staff
         Regulations.                                                   Furthermore, the note from the Assistant Director-General of
                                                                        DG XII which stated that the applicant had been replaced
                                                                        as official correspondent for the Advisory Committee on
4. The decision violates the legitimate expectations of the             Procurement and Contracts for DG XII with effect from
     staff which were aroused by a course of conduct of the             1 September 1996, was not drawn up as soon as the relevant
     Bank’s Administration amounting to a clear assurance that          decision was adopted, nor was a copy of the note sent to the
     the mechanism would continue to be applicable after                applicant, nor was it included in his personal file. The members
     1 January 1999.                                                    of the Promotions Committee would not, therefore, have been
                                                                        aware of an essential piece of information concerning the
                                                                        applicant’s administrative status.