CELEX: C1995/087/31
Language: en
Date: 1995-04-08 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 2 February 1995 by Nuno Do Paço Quesado against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-15/95)

No C 87/14            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8 . 4 . 95
     under Article 92 ( 3 ) (c), and acting in a manner              — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision of the
     inconsistent with its own guidelines on restructuring of             Commission of 19 October 1994 expressly rejecting his
     firms in difficulty,                                                 complaint,
— in holding, contrary to Article 92 ( 1 ), that the third           — order the Commission to pay the costs .
    injection did not constitute State aid, through a
    misapplication of the 'private investor' criterion in a
    manner which is inconsistent with its own guidelines and         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    with the behaviour of a true private investor, Union
    Carbide Corporation,                                             The applicant, an official of the Commission in the LA
                                                                     career bracket, contests the decision of the appointing
                                                                     authority classifying him in grade LA 5 , step 1 , in
— in failing to open Article 93 (2 ) proceedings in respect of       consequence of his reinstatement on 1 April 1994 in his
    the third injection, thereby depriving the parties               original service following his secondment, at his own
    concerned of their procedural guarantees under                   request, to the European Centre for the Development of
    Article 93 (2 ) and ( 3 ) as interpreted in the Court's          Vocational Training ( Cedefop ) for a period of seven
    consistent case-law,                                             years .
— in failing to verify and monitor the information and               He points out in that regard that, during that secondment
    proposals put to it by the Italian authorities, thereby          period, he passed a competition held with a view to the
    failing to apply the 'private investor' test correctly and to    drawing up of a reserve list of principal translators/revisers
    ensure that alleged capacity closures had been or would          appointed to grade LA 5 , step 1 , as at 1 October 1990 .
    be made permanent and were of sufficient scale to be in          Consequently, his reinstatement in grade LA 5, step 1 , failed
    the Community interest.                                          to take account, as regards seniority in step, of the period
                                                                     during which he worked at Cedefop .
(!) OJ No C 151 , 2 . 6 . 1994 , p. 3 .                              He asserts in particular that there has been an infringement
                                                                     of the provisions of the Staff Regulations relating to
                                                                     secondment and, more especially, of Article 37 of the Staff
                                                                     Regulations, inasmuch as that Article provides that an
                                                                     official on secondment is to continue to enjoy all his rights
                                                                     under the conditions contained in Articles 38 and 39 . He
                                                                     states in that regard that Article 39 of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                     which governs the secondment of an official at his own
                                                                     request, contains no specific rules as to his right to
                                                                     advancement and his eligibility for promotion. Since that
Action brought on 2 February 1995 by Nuno Do Paqo                   Article constitutes a provision derogating from the ordinary
Quesado against the Commission of the European                       rules, it must be strictly interpreted.
                           Communities
                          (Case T-15/95 )                            It follows that, since officials who are seconded at their own
                           (95/C 87/31 )                             request are not expressly excluded by that provision, they
                                                                    must continue to enjoy the right to automatic advancement
                                                                     in step. To apply any contrary interpretation would be to
                (Language of the case: French)                       disregard the principle of 'career continuity'.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 2 February 1995
by Nuno Do Vaqo Quesado, residing in Trier ( Germany),
represented by Jean-Noel Louis and Veronique Leclercq, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg         Action brought on 7 February 1995 by SA Adia Interim
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.               against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                             (Case T-19/95 )
                                                                                               ( 95/C 87/32 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
— annul the decision of the Commission of 1 March 1994
    inasmuch as it classifies the applicant in grade LA 5, step
    1 , with seniority in grade and in step from 1 April            An action against the Commission of the European
    1994,                                                           Communities was brought before the Court of First