CELEX: C1997/054/58
Language: en
Date: 1997-02-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 26 December 1996 by Paul Hodson against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-218/96)

22 . 2 . 97           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 54/35
Instance on 24 December 1996 by Lut Fabert-Goossens,                  unlawful . She also complains that there was no specific
resident in Blanden ( Belgium), represented by Marc-Albert            examination of her experience and alleges a manifest error
Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for service in               of assessment .
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 rue de
Nassau .                                                              In the further alternative, she challenges the decision to
                                                                      grade her in grade A 7 in post 50/T, when her grading
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          should have been at least in A 6/3 , alleging absence of a
                                                                      statement of reasons, breach of the second sentence of the
                                                                      second paragraph of Articles 25 and 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff
principally,                                                          Regulations and of the first paragraph of Article 2 of the
                                                                      Commission 's Decision of 1 September 1983 , breach of
— annul or declare unlawful the Commission 's decision                the duty to have regard for the interests of officials and
     not to recruit the applicant to post No 71/T/TFRH/93 ,           manifest error of assessment, and complaining of the
                                                                      unfair effect on her carreer.
— annul      the   Commission 's    decision   to   recruit the
     applicant to post 50T7XVI/93 ,
in the alternative,
                                                                      Action brought on 26 December 1996 by Paul Hodson
— annul the Commission's decision to grade the                           against the Commission of the European Communities
     applicant in grade 7 in post 50T/XVI/93 , when she                                      ( Case T-218/96 )
     should have been graded in grade A 5/3 ,
                                                                                                97/C 54/58 )
in the further alternative,
                                                                                      (Language of the case: French)
— annul the Commission's decision to grade the                        An action against the Commission of the European
     applicant in grade 7 in post 50T/XVI/93 , when she               Communities was brought before the Court of First
     should at least have been graded in grade A 6/3 ,                Instance of the European Communities on 26 December
                                                                      1996 by Paul Flodson, residing at Brussels, represented by
at all events,                                                        Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for
                                                                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn,
                                                                      21 rue de Nassau .
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      — annul the appointing authority's decision on
The applicant, a member of the Commission's temporary                      12 December 1995 classifying the applicant in grade 7,
staff in grade A 7/3 , had, moreover, worked as a member
of the temporary staff in grade B in DG XVI since 1989 .              — annul the appointing authority's decision of
According to her staff report, the tasks entrusted to her                  26 September 1996 rejecting the applicant's
would normally have been performed by an official in                       administrative complaint No R/416/96 of 3 April
grade A. In 1993 the Commission published several                          1996 against that decision,
recruitment notices for category A, relating inter alia to
posts 71/T/TFRH/93 with the 'Human Resources,                         — order the Commission to pay the costs .
Education, Training and Youth' Task Force and 50T/XVI/
93 in DG XVI. The applicant's name was on the list of
suitable candidates for both those posts . The applicant has          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
already lodged a complaint against the Commission's
decision not to recruit her to post 71 /T and its decision to         The applicant, an official of the Commission in grade A 7/
grade her in grade 7 for post 50/T.                                   3 , challenges in particular the classification decision of the
                                                                      appointing authority of 12 December 1995 and requests a
                                                                      more favourable classification under Article 31 ( 2 ) of the
In the present application the applicant further claims that          Staff Regulations so that the appointing authority may
the failure to recruit her to post 71 /T was unlawful and             take into account his professional experience and
that there was an infringement of the rules relating to               qualifications . He claims that the grounds on which it is
withdrawal of administrative acts giving rise to rights.              based are not stated since the Commission did not
Moreover, the administration did not carry out a specific             respond to his specific and exact arguments with regard to
examination of the applicant's experience .                           the exceptional nature of his qualifications in comparison
                                                                      with the post for which he was engaged. Rather, the
In the alternative, the applicant maintains that her grading          Commission merely relied, in this regard, on altogether
in grade A 7 in post 50/T, when it should have been in                general arguments. It did not state why, in this case, the
A 5/3 pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 2 of the            qualifications claimed by the applicant could not be
Commission's Decision of 1 September 1983 , was                       considered to be exceptional . The two contested decisions
 ---pagebreak--- No C 54/36           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22 . 2 . 97
adversely affect the applicant, the grounds on which they           The applicant further pleads that there has been a failure
are based are not stated and, consequently, they infringe           to take into account his entitlement to a pension .
the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 25           Although he applied for the transfer of the pension
of the Staff Regulations . Moreover, the administration             entitlement acquired by him in Germany, he received, by
committed a manifest error of assessment in considering             letter of 1 April 1996, a breakdown showing only the
that the applicant's qualifications were not exceptional for        reimbursement of his personal pension contributions . No
the purpose of applying Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff                transfer of his pension entitlement has been effected and
Regulations.                                                        he now enjoys only an extremely modest pension
                                                                    entitlement within the German system, whilst being
                                                                    deprived of any entitlement under the pension system of
                                                                    the Community civil service .
Action brought on 27 December 1996 by 'Y' against the
                    European Parliament
                      ( Case T-219/96 )
                         ( 97/C 54/59 )                             Action brought on 10 December 1996 by Elliniki
                                                                    Viomikhania Oplon ( EVO ) AE v. Council of the European
               (Language of the case: French)                          Union and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                           ( Case T-220/96 )
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European                                             ( 97/C 54/60 )
Communities on 27 December 1996 by 'Y', residing in
Brussels, represented by Gerard Collin, of the Brussels Bar,                        (Language of the case: Greek)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 rue de Cessange .                      An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                    the Commission of the European Communities was
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         brought before the Court of First Instance on 10 December
                                                                    1996 by Elliniki Viomikhania Oplon ( EVO ) AE, a
— order the European Parliament to reimburse to the                 company governed by Greek law having its seat in Athens,
    applicant the sums improperly withheld from his                 represented by Mikhail Stathopoulos and Ioannis
    salary between 1 November 1993 and 19 January                   Anagnostou , of the Athens Bar, with an address for service
     1996, together with default interest from the dates            in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May.
    when they respectively became due and payable,
— order the European Parliament to pay compensation in              The applicant claims that the Court should :
    the provisional sum of Bfrs 3 000 000, subject to
    increase during the course of the proceedings,                  1 . delcare the application admissible,
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.                   2 . order the defendants, for the reason set out in the
                                                                         application, to pay it US $ 75 451 500, or the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      equivalent in ecus on the date of payment according to
                                                                         the highest official rate of US $ to ecu, or, in the
On 6 October 1993 the appointing authority decided to                    alternative ECU 60 478 770 at the current official rate
suspend the applicant from his duties and to withhold half               of US $ to ecu, with interest at 8 % , as is usual in
of his basic salary, pursuant to Article 88 of the Staff                 international contracts, from the date on which the
Regulations. On 6 June 1994, the applicant was convicted                 application was lodged to the date of full settlement,
of an offence by the Tribunal Correctionnel de Bruxelles                 against the transfer to them of the applicant's claim
(Brussels Criminal Court ).                                              against the Central Bank of Iraq in that amount,
Under the third and fifth paragraphs of Article 88 of the
Staff Regulations, the applicant's situation should have            3 . order the defendants to pay the costs and fees of the
been definitively resolved within four months from the                   applicant's lawyers .
date when the verdict reached by the criminal court
hearing the case became final . Since his conviction became         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
final on 21 June 1994, the applicant's situation should
have been definitively resolved by no later than 21 October         The applicant company manufactures and trades in
1994 . The time limit of four months was clearly not                weapons and munitions . Under a contract of 12 January
complied with, since the applicant became aware on                  1987 it sold to Iraq munitions, which it supplied over the
5 February 1996 of the disciplinary decision removing him           period 25 October 1987 to 30 May 1989 , for a price
from his post which the appointing authority had taken              which was to be paid by the Central Bank of Iraq by way
on 19 January 1996 . The applicant is applying, pursuant            of irrevocable guaranteed letter of credit. The Central
to the fourth paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff                  Bank of Iraq refused, however, to pay, relying on
Regulations, for reimbursement of the sums withheld from            Resolution No 660 of 6 August 1990 of the United
his remuneration; those sums were improperly withheld               Nations Security Council, on the basis of which Council
between 1 November 1993 and 19 January 1996 .                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 2340/90 was adopted, prohibiting