CELEX: C2002/247/28
Language: en
Date: 2002-10-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-224/02: Action brought on 23 July 2002 by Miguel Forcat Icardo against the Commission of the European Communities

12.10.2002             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his claim, the applicant alleges infringement of             The applicants are contesting the change in the calculation
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principle of            method used by the Commission up until 1996 and/or 1997
equal treatment and of the principle that officials should have            in relation to the annual expense of travelling to Greece.
reasonable career prospects and manifest error of assessment
and failure to provide reasons.
                                                                           They point out in that regard that the travel expenses in
                                                                           question were previously calculated on the basis of the cost of
The promotions committee awarded the applicant additional                  a first class rail ticket for a journey passing through Yugoslavia,
points in order to ensure that he was not penalised for his                regardless of the final destination. The new method involves
mobility. The Commission however does not provide any                      taking into consideration, in respect of certain destinations, a
explanation of how those additional points were taken into                 journey via Brindisi to the various Greek frontier posts based
consideration when examining the comparative merits of the                 on the cost of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket.
candidates. Neither does it explain why it promoted persons
whose total points were fewer than those of the applicant.
                                                                           In support of their claims, the applicants plead:
                                                                           —     infringement of Article 71 of the Staff Regulations and of
                                                                                 Articles 7 and 8 of Annex VII thereto;
                                                                           —     breach of the principle of non-discrimination, inasmuch
                                                                                 as the change in the method of calculating the travel
Action brought on 24 July 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef                                expenses in issue has resulted in the persons concerned
and Others against the Commission of the European                                being treated differently from their colleagues whose
                          Communities                                            place of origin is located in northern Greece. Whereas,
                                                                                 for part of Greece, the sum continues to be calculated on
                        (Case T-221/02)                                          the basis of a journey via Yugoslavia, the same calculation
                                                                                 cannot be carried out for the rest of Greece;
                        (2002/C 247/27)                                    —     infringement of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as
                                                                                 the persons concerned have been denied the possibility
                   (Language of the case: French)                                of presenting to the competent authority their views on
                                                                                 the choice of itinerary and the tariff to be taken into
                                                                                 account;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  —     breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       reasons, of the principle of the protection of legitimate
European Communities on 24 July 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef                          expectations and of the duty to have regard for the
and 63 other officials, represented by G. Bounéou, lawyer,                       welfare and interests of officials.
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      changing, with effect from 1996 and/or 1997, the
      procedure for calculating the annual expense of travelling           Action brought on 23 July 2002 by Miguel Forcat Icardo
      to Greece in respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken             against the Commission of the European Communities
      into consideration for certain destinations;
                                                                                                       (Case T-224/02)
—     alternatively, annul the decision of the competent hier-
      archical authority to reimburse, with effect from 1996
      and/or 1997, the cost of the sea passage from Brindisi to                                        (2002/C 247/28)
      various Greek frontier posts (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras)
      on the basis of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;                                            (Language of the case: French)
—     annul all the applicants’ reimbursement statements
      implementing the decisions annulment of which is
      sought;                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the                European Communities on 23 July 2002 by Miguel Forcat
      Commission to pay those costs.                                       Icardo, represented by M. Lucas, lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/18              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 12.10.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            —     order the Commission to pay him 8 % annual interest on
                                                                             those amounts, dating from 23 July 2002 until payment
—    annul the decision of 8 December 1998 of the Director-                  in full;
     General of DG DEV;
                                                                       —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—    in so far as necessary, annul the instructions attached to
     the note of 29 July 1999 from the Head of the ‘Human
     Resources’ unit of DG DEV;
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
—    annul the decision of 21 October 1999 of the Director-
     General of DG DEV;
                                                                       The applicant, a former Head of Unit, in Grade A3, requests
—    annul the decision of 22 December 1999 of the Director-           annulment of the Commission’s decision to reassign him as a
     General of DG DEV;
                                                                       counsellor and to entrust him with certain duties in that
                                                                       capacity. He also asks the Court to find that the Commission
—    annul the decision of 19 February 2001 of the Director-           is acting unlawfully by failing to reassign him in a middle
     General of DG DEV;                                                management post or to second him outside the institution in
                                                                       the interest of the service. In addition, he is requesting
—    annul the decision of 14 November 2001 of the Director            the annulment of his periodic report for 1999-2001 and
     of Directorate D of DG DEV, approved by its Director-             compensation for the material and non-material damage he
     General;                                                          has suffered.
—    annul his staff report for 1999-2001, drawn up on
     18 March 2002 by the Director of Directorate D of DG              In support of the forms of order sought, the applicant claims
     DEV;                                                              that the Commission infringed Articles 5(4) and 7 of the Staff
                                                                       Regulations, as well as Annex IV to the General Implementing
—    annul the decision by the External Service Steering               Provisions, of 10 March 1997, of Article 5(4) of the Staff
     Committee to reject his application for a post as Head of         Regulations, in that he was not assigned the functions or was
     Delegation under the 2002 rotation exercise, as well as           assigned functions which did not correspond to his post and
     the confirmation of that decision;                                grade. Moreover, he claims that the Commission infringed the
                                                                       principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate
                                                                       expectations in that not reassigning him in certain middle
—    annul the implied decision of 16 September 2001 to
                                                                       management posts and not seconding him outside the insti-
     reject his request of 16 May 2001;
                                                                       tution in the interest of the service went against promises,
                                                                       decisions and commitments made by the administration.
—    should they constitute a response to the request of
     16 May 2001, annul the decisions of 31 October and
     14 December 2001 by the Chef de Cabinet of the Vice-
     President of the Commission and of the Director-General
     of DG DEV;
—    establish the unlawfulness of the failure to reassign the
     applicant as Head of the ‘Indian Ocean’ unit of DG DEV
     by his Director-General in March 2000;
                                                                       Action brought on 26 July 2002 by André Hecq against
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
—    establish the unlawfulness of the failure to second the
     applicant, in the interest of the service, to the Spanish
     civil service in Madrid or to the FAO in Rome;                                            (Case T-226/02)
—    order the Commission to pay him, as compensation for
     non-material damage, the sum of EUR 10 000 assessed                                       (2002/C 247/29)
     ex aequo et bono;
                                                                                         (Language of the case: French)
—    order the Commission to pay him, as compensation for
     the damage to his career, a sum corresponding to the
     difference between the retirement pension and other
     benefits to which he is entitled under the second indent
     of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations on the date on             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     which he requests early retirement and the remuneration,          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     retirement pension and other benefits to which he would           European Communities on 26 July 2002 by André Hecq,
     be entitled if he could have retired from his post at the         residing in Mondercange (Luxembourg), represented by Lucas
     age of 65;                                                        Vogel and Dominique Amatulli, lawyers.