CELEX: C1996/294/22
Language: en
Date: 1996-10-05 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 12 July 1996 by Mireille Cesaratto against the European Parliament (Case T-108/96)

5 . 10 . 96              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 294/ 11
For cases in which the written procedure was completed and             Action brought on 12 July 1996 by Mireille Cesaratto
a hearing in the oral procedure was held or fixed before                              against the European Parliament
1 October 1996 , the Chamber shall continue to sit with the                                    Case T-108/96 )
same composition as before for the oral procedure, the
                                                                                                 96/C 294/22 )
deliberation and the judgment.
                                                                                       (Language of the case: French)
Criteria for assigning cases to the Chambers
                                                                       An action against the European Parliament was brought
At its meeting on 12 September 1996 , the Court of First               before the Court of First Instance of the European
Instance established the following criteria for the                    Communities on 12 July 1996 by Mireille Cesaratto,
assignment of cases to the Chambers for the period between             residing in Luxembourg, represented by Gaston Vogel of the
1 October 1996 and 30 September 1997, pursuant to                      Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure :                                 Luxembourg at his Chambers, 42 , boulevard Joseph II .
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
1 . ( a ) Actions which concern the implementation of the
            rules concerning State aid and the rules on trade          — annul the contested decision,
            protection measures are to be assigned, with effect
            from the lodging of the application and without            — order the European Parliament to pay the costs .
            prejudice to any subsequent application of
            Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure, to
            Chambers with an extended composition of five              Pleas in law and main arguments
            Judges .
                                                                       The applicant, an official of the European Parliament, who
                                                                       had submitted a request under Article 41 of the Staff
     ( b ) All other cases are to be assigned, with effect from        Regulations to leave its service before the due date on
            the lodging of the application and without                 account of her personal circumstances, is challenging the
            prejudice to any subsequent application of                 appointing authority's refusal to assign her non-active
            Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure , to          status under that provision. That decision is based on the
            Chambers of three Judges .                                 consideration that the defendant institution had not decided
                                                                       on a reduction, in the interests of the service, in the number
                                                                       of posts' corresponding to the applicant's category .
2 . Cases referred to in paragraphs 1 ( a ) and 1 ( b ) are to be
     assigned to Chambers as follows :                                 She maintains in particular that, in comparison with the
                                                                       position of two other officials of the same institution to
     — cases referred to in paragraph 1 ( a ) are to be assigned       whom Article 41 has been applied, the contested decision is
           in turn, according to the order in which they are           unlawful because of a misuse of powers .
           registered at the Court Registry, to the First, Second,
           Third, Fourth and Fifth Chambers , Extended                 As regards the first of those two other officials, two criteria
           Composition,                                                seem to have been decisive in granting his request to be
                                                                       assigned non-active status : the fact that he occupied a post
     — cases referred to in paragraph 1 ( b ) are to be assigned       which was going to be abolished, and his age, or his
           to the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth               seniority . The applicant disputes the fact that the post in
           Chambers . Such assignment is to be effected on the         question was marked out for abolition when that decision
                                                                       was taken a few months before the official reached
           basis of two separate lists , of staff cases and other
           cases covered by paragraph 1 ( b ) respectively,            retirement age . In that respect, she considers that there was a
           according to the order in which they are registered at      sham abolition of a post in order to allow an official to enjoy
           the Court Registry .                                        a considerable advantage two months before his
                                                                       retirement .
The First Chamber and the First Chamber, Extended                      As regards the second official, chosen on the basis of his
Composition, presided by the President of the Court of First           family circumstances, the applicant denies that those
Instance, shall not be included in those lists on every third          circumstances really existed . She also alleges that the
occasion .                                                             Parliament should have paid more attention to the other
                                                                       criteria referred to in Article 41 of the Staff Regulations . The
                                                                       applicant specifically points out that she has eight more
The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate              years of service than the official in question .
from that order on the ground that cases are related or with
a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload between              In addition , the applicant claims that the defendant's
the various Chambers .
                                                                       treatment of her constitutes a breach of the principle of
                                                                       equal treatment.