CELEX: C1995/137/77
Language: en
Date: 1995-06-03 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 29 March 1995 by Lieve De Nil and Christiane Impens against the Council of the European Union (Case T-91/95)

3 . 6 . 95              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 137/35
     prices prevailing at the time and the fact that it was             — order the defendant to pay the costs .
     impossible for a forwarding agent to verify the accuracy
     of answers given in declarations,                                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— breach of the principle of proportionality. The                       The applicant, a former Commission official suffering total
     obligation deemed by the decision to be incumbent on               permanent invalidity, criticizes the Commission for failing
     the forwarding agent, requiring him to examine the                 to disclose to him certain detail concerning his state of
     accuracy of the information supplied by the client for the         health, in particular for not advising him in due time of the
     purposes of the declaration and to ensure that the client          illness diagnosed by its doctors, and for keeping him in a
     is not acting fraudulently, is disproportionate,                   post incompatible with his state of health .
— infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention
                                                                        He states that, being afflicted with an obstructive
     on Human Rights .
                                                                        bronco-pneumopathic condition, the applicant applied for
(M OJ No L 175 , 12 . 7. 1979 , p . 1 .
                                                                        retirement on grounds of invalidity under the second
                                                                        paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations and it was
                                                                        not until 27 March 1987, nearly six years after being lodged,
                                                                        that that application was examined by the Invalidity
                                                                        Committee, which concluded that he was not suffering from
Action brought on 29 March 1995 by Walter Gill against                  an occupational illness . It was only during that procedure
        the Commission of the European Communities                      that the applicant learned that the Commission's medical
                                                                        officers had , in particular when examining him prior to
                          ( Case T-90/95 )                              recruitment, diagnosed a chronic pulmonary illness .
                            ( 95/C 137/76 )
                                                                        He claims in particular, in that regard, that, by failing to
                 (Language of the case: French)                         inform him or his doctor of the results of the examinations
                                                                        carried out by its doctors, the Commission unlawfully
An action against the Commission of the European                        deprived him of the opportunity of deciding, in full
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       knowledge of the facts , whether or not to accept
Instance of the European Communities on 29 March 1995                   employment of a kind which might aggravate his state of
by Walter Gill, of Sudbury (United Kingdom ), represented               health .
by Jean-Noel Louis , Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                     Furthermore, in view of the incoherence of the statement of
                                                                        the reasons on which the successive decisions of the
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue
Glesener .                                                              appointing authority were based and the changes in the
                                                                        versions thereof occurring in the course of the various
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            procedures, there was what in reality amounted to a total
                                                                        lack of any statement of reasons .
— annul the Commission decision of 26 September 1994
     expressly rejecting his claim for compensation of                  Finally, since the appointing authority did not supply to the
     10 May 1994 under Article 90 ( 1 ) of the Staff                    applicant, despite an express request from his adviser,
     Regulations,                                                       specific information regarding the measures adopted by it in
                                                                        order to preserve his anonymity, and having regard to the
— annul, so far as necessary, the Commission decision of                documents     disclosed     to  him  in  the  course   of the
     28 December 1994 expressly rejecting his complaint and             pre-litigation procedure , the applicant can but conclude that
     his more detailed complaint,                                       no proper measure was taken and that his right to respect of
                                                                        his private life was scornfully disregarded by the
— order the defendant:                                                  administration .
     — to pay, by way of compensation for material and
          non-material          damage      suffered      through
          non-disclosure of information as to his state of
          health, a sum equal to eight years ' remuneration to
          which he would have been entitled if he had not been
                                                                        Action brought on 29 March 1995 by Lieve De Nil and
          obliged , as a result of the successive wrongful acts         Christiane Impens against the Council of the European
          committed , to apply for retirement on grounds of                                            Union
          invalidity,
                                                                                               ( Case T-91/95 )
     — to pay compensatory interest on that sum at the rate                                      ( 95/C 137/77 )
          of 8 % per annum as from the date of his
          application,
                                                                                       (Language of the case: French)
     — to pay the applicant the sum of ECU 10 000 , by way
          of redress for the non-material damage suffered as a          An action against the Council of the European Union was
          result of the fact that, without reservation and              brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
          against his will, his application and complaint were          Communities on 29 March 1995 by Lieve De Nil and
          made public,                                                  Christiane Impens, of Wolvertem and Brussels (Belgium ),
 ---pagebreak--- No C 137/36         f EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3 . 6 . 95
respectively, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry                 the list of successful candidates in competition B/228 , for
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an            which no remedy was provided by the decisions taken by the
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire         Council .
Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener .
                                                                      Finally, they claim that the decisions of the appointing
                                                                      authority rejecting their request of 15 March 1994 and their
The applicants claim that the Court should :                          complaint of 4 January 1995 seeking compensation for the
                                                                      damage resulting from the unlawful act annulled by the
— annul the Council decision of 15 June 1994 expressly                Court of First Instance constitute breaches of Article 176 of
    rejecting their claim for compensation for additional             the EC Treaty and therefore further instances of
    harm suffered ,                                                   maladministration for which they seek compensation.
— annul, so far as necessary, the Council decisions of
    9 June 1994 and 4 January 1995 ,
— order the defendant:
                                                                      Action brought on 5 April 1995 by Sebastien
                                                                      Rozand-Lambiotte against the Commission of the
    — to pay the sum of Bfrs 500 000 ( five hundred                                      European Communities
        thousand ) to each applicant, by way of
        compensation for material damage suffered,                                           ( Case T-96/95 )
                                                                                               ( 95/C 137/78 )
    — to pay the symbolic sum of ECU 1 to each applicant
         by way of compensation for the non-material                                 (Language of the case: French)
         damage sufferd by them,
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
    — to pay the costs .                                              Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 5 April 1995 by
                                                                      Sebastien Rozand-Lambiotte, residing at La Javie ( France ),
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
                                                                      Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
The applicants state that they were admitted to the tests in          service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
internal Council competition B/228 (a competition designed            Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
to enable officials in grade CI to have their posts reclassified
as B5 ), but the selection board decided not to include them          The applicant claims that the Court should :
on the list of successful candidates . Following an action for
annulment brought against that decision, the Court of First           — annul the decision of the Commission of 12 July 1994
Instance gave a judgment on 11 February 1993 annulling                    dismissing the applicant on the expiry of his
the action taken following the decisions concerning                       probationary period,
admission to the tests . In order to comply with the
judgment, the Council organized competition B/228 bis,                — order the defendant to pay the costs .
which was of the same kind and involved the same
procedures for marking the tests as competition B/228 . The
selection board included the applicants on the list of                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
successful candidates and their posts were reclassified as B5
with effect from 1 January 1994 .                                     The applicant maintains, first, that the contested decision
                                                                      was adopted in contravention of his right to a fair hearing
                                                                      and of Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations, and that it
The applicants maintain that the irregularities committed by          did not satisfy the obligation to provide a statement of
the selection board for competition B/228 prevented them              reasons . He considers that the facts brought to his
from being included on the list of successful candidates and          knowledge, such as they were, were incapable of
therefore from having their posts reclassified as B5 in 1990          constituting the legal basis for a decision as serious as one of
or, at the latest, in 1991 ; as a result, they lost three years'      dismissal .
seniority in grade B5 . Moreover, their chances of securing
rapid promotion to grade B4 and then to grade B3 have been            He also pleads infringement of Article 34 of the Staff
considerably diminished by the budgetary restrictions                 Regulations, claiming that the work carried out in the
imposed since 1991 . They conclude that the effects of the            matter by the Reports Committee followed a course which
irregularities committed by the selection board were                  blatantly disregarded the rules in force within the
perpetuated as far as they were concerned, despite the                Commission, those rules having been laid down in order to
measures taken by the Council to comply with the judgment             ensure the impartiality of the members of the various
of the Court of Justice and seek redress for the material             committees and the objectivity of the work done by them.
damage suffered .                                                     He concludes from the foregoing that the opinion arrived at
                                                                      by the Committee was adopted following an improper
The applicants also maintain that they suffered                       procedure and that the contested decision is unlawful
non-material damage through not having been entered on                inasmuch as it is based, in particular, on that opinion.