CELEX: C1999/160/58
Language: en
Date: 1999-06-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-88/99: Action brought on 14 April 1999 by Vasilios Boukouvalas against the European Parliament

5.6.1999              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 160/31
— breach of legitimate expectations and the principles of                 Action brought on 13 April 1999 by Gastone Parigi
    legal certainty and of proper publication of measures in                             against the European Parliament
    that amendment of 13 September 1995 had not been
    brought to the notice of the Members concerned. In this
                                                                                                   (Case T-85/99)
    connection, the applicant also alleges infringement of
    article 27 (1) of the Rules Governing the Payment of
    Expense and Allowances to Members,                                                            (1999/C 160/57)
— breach of the principle of non-discrimination, as may be
    seen from a comparison between the applicant’s position                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
    and that of colleagues sitting in the national parliament or
    that of Italian Members who have taken their seats during
    the current parliamentary term.                                       An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          13 April 1999 by Gastone Parigi, represented by Wilma
Lastly the applicant pleads breach of the requirement to state            Viscardini Donà, assisted by Gabriela Donà, both of the Padua
reasons, of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials          Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
and of the principle of proper administration.                            of Ernest Arendt,8-10, rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — annul, pursuant to article 173 of the EC Treaty, after
                                                                              holding, pursuant to article 184 of the EC Treaty, that the
                                                                              period of six months laid down in article 3 (1) of Annex
Action brought on 13 April 1999 by Leoluca Orlando                            III to the ‘Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and
               against the European Parliament                                Allowances to Members’ is inapplicable, the decision of
                                                                              the Council of quaestors of 4 February 1999, reference No
                                                                              300761, rejecting Mr Gastone Parigi’s request for the
                         (Case T-84/99)
                                                                              provisional pension scheme referred to in the said Annex
                                                                              to apply with retroactive effect as from the beginning of
                        (1999/C 160/56)                                       the current parliamentary term,
                                                                          — order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                            proceedings.
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                Pleas in law and main arguments
13 April 1999 by Leoluca Orlando represented by Wilma
Viscardini Donà, assisted by Gabriela Donà, both of the Padua
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
                                                                          raised in Case T-83/99 Ripa di Meana v. Parliament.
of Ernest Arendt, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul, pursuant to article 173 of the EC Treaty, after
    holding, pursuant to article 184 of the EC Treaty, that the
    period of six months laid down in article 3 (1) of Annex
    III to the ‘Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and
    Allowances to Members’ is inapplicable, the decision of               Action brought on 14 April 1999 by Vasilios Boukouvalas
    the Council of quaestors of 4 February 1999, reference No                            against the European Parliament
    300763, rejecting Mr Leoluca Orlando’s request for the
    provisional pension scheme referred to in the said Annex                                       (Case T-88/99)
    to apply with retroactive effect as from the beginning of
    the current parliamentary term,
                                                                                                  (1999/C 160/58)
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
    proceedings.
                                                                                              (Language of the case: Greek)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                 14 April 1999 by Vasilios Boukouvalas, an official of the
raised in Case T-83/99 Ripa di Meana v. Parliament.                       European Parliament, resident in Brussels, represented by
                                                                          Professor Kharis Tagaras, of the Thessaloniki Bar, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Véronique
                                                                          Duhaubois, 139, rue Schetzel, L-2518 Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 160/32              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.6.1999
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Action brought on 15 April 1999 by Oliver Valk against
                                                                                         the European Parliament
— find his action admissible,
                                                                                               (Case T-89/99)
— hold to be unlawful and annul:                                                              (1999/C 160/59)
    (a) the implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint of 9                         (Language of the case: German)
        December 1998 against the act contested under (b)
        below,                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                      the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                      15 April 1999 by Oliver Valk, resident in Berlin, represented
    (b) Decision No 26264/11.9.1998 of the defendant bear-            by Joachim Kayser, Rechtsanwalt, of Körnerstrasse 5, Berlin,
        ing the signature of the Head of the Personnel Service        and having an address service at the latter’s Chambers.
        Mrs Nouaille-Degorce, rejecting his application of 16
        July 1998 regarding payment of the allowance, under           The applicant claims that the Court should order the defendant
        article 2 (4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations,          to withdraw its Decision rejecting the applicant as a candidate
        whereby parents may be treated as if they were                in Competition PE/86/A (OJ 77 A, 12.3.1998) and to admit
        dependent children,                                           the applicant to the competition.
— order the defendant to pay that allowance to the applicant          Pleas in law and main arguments
    for the above period, together with interest for late
    payment at 8 % from the date upon which each monthly              The applicant, who on 12 December 1996 passed the Erste
    payment became due,                                               Juristische Staatsprüfung (first State law examination), in which
                                                                      he was awarded the mark ‘befriedigend’ (‘satisfactory’), applied
— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal costs, and         within the specified time to take part in Competition
    to so order even if the action is dismissed first, because        PE/86/A (1) for the recruitment of English-language assistant
    there are exceptional circumstances within the meaning of         administrators. On 21 October 1998 he was informed — only
    the first subparagraph of article 87 (3) of the Rules             after having himself made an enquiry in that regard — that he
    of Procedure, in particular circumstances of personal             had not been admitted to the competition because the results
    impecuniosity, as set out in the main body of the                 of his final examination were not equivalent to a ‘Second Class
    application and, secondly, because of the applicant was           Honours {degree}, Division One (a “2.1”)’ in Ireland or the
    impelled to bring this action following the failure of the        United Kingdom.
    defendant to reply to his complaint within the four-month
                                                                      The applicant considers that the defendant has failed to attach
    time-limit laid down.
                                                                      sufficient weight to the significance of the Erste Juristische
                                                                      Staatsprüfung in Germany.
Grounds for annulment and main arguments                              In obtaining the mark ‘bedriedigend’ in his final examination,
                                                                      he was amongst the top 36 % of those sitting that examination
                                                                      in Germany in that year. By contrast, the percentage of
                                                                      graduates obtaining a ‘Second Class Honours, Division One
(a) The defendant wrongly took account of the income of the           (a“2.1”)’ grade in Ireland or the United Kingdom was signifi-
    applicant’s two brothers.                                         cantly higher, as is demonstrated, for example, by the fact that
                                                                      in 1997 and 1998 approximately 70 % of those sitting final
                                                                      examinations at the University of Cambridge obtained a
(b) The defendant miscalculated the applicant’s net monthly           ‘Second Class Honours, Division One (a “2.1”)’.
    income.
                                                                      If the final mark obtained by the applicant were to be regarded
(c) The defendant calculated incorrectly the thresholds of 30 %       as fulfilling the criteria referred to, that would amount
    or 20 % on hypothetical pay (full-time employment),               to discrimination between German law students and other
    instead of on actual pay (part-time employment).                  students, who are normally awarded higher final marks.
                                                                      For the purposes of participating in European Parliament
                                                                      competitions, candidates from Germany should not be
(d) The defendant failed to apply article 10 of the general
                                                                      required to have obtained very much better final grades than
    implementing provisions.
                                                                      candidates from other Member States.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 77 A, 12.3.1998.