CELEX: C2001/227/37
Language: en
Date: 2001-08-11 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2001 in Joined Cases T-95/00 and T-96/00: Tamara Zaur-Gora and Danielle Dubigh v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Competition — Non-admission — Age limit — Request for review — Time-limit for lodging a complaint — Admissibility — Misuse of powers — Discrimination — Action manifestly unfounded)

11.8.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 227/19
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           of 3 April 2001                                  —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 19 June
                                                                                  2000, notified on 26 June 2000, imposing on the
in Joined Cases T-95/00 and T-96/00: Tamara Zaur-Gora                             applicant, with effect from 1 July 2000, the disciplinary
and Danielle Dubigh v Commission of the European                                  measure of downgrading from grade A3, step 3, to
                          Communities (1)                                         grade A6, step 6, as provided for in Article 86(2)(e) of the
                                                                                  Staff Regulations and, in so far as may be necessary, annul
                                                                                  the implicit decision rejecting the complaint submitted on
(Officials — Competition — Non-admission — Age limit                              11 September 2000;
— Request for review — Time-limit for lodging a complaint
— Admissibility — Misuse of powers — Discrimination —
                  Action manifestly unfounded)                              —     order the defendant to pay EUR 50 000 by way of
                                                                                  compensation for the damage suffered as a result of that
                                                                                  decision, that sum being provisionally quantified on an
                          (2001/C 227/37)                                         equitable basis;
                                                                            —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                     (Language of the case: French)
In Joined Cases T-95/00 and T-96/00: Tamara Zaur-Gora, a
member of the auxiliary staff of the Commission of the                      Pleas in law and main arguments
European Communities, residing at Lodelinsart (Belgium), and
Danielle Dubigh, residing in Brussels, represented by
J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, avocats, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities                        Disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the appli-
(Agents: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for               cant when the administration of the defendant institution
annulment of the decisions of the selection board in compe-                 learned that his wife had been awarded an employment
tition COM/C/2/99 not to admit the applicants to that                       contract with one of its contractors and had been paid for six
competition — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                  months despite the fact that she only worked for two weeks.
composed of: J. Azizi, President, and K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 3 April 2001,
the operative part of which is as follows:                                  In the context of those disciplinary proceedings, the appointing
                                                                            authority decided that the applicant should be suspended. That
1.    The actions are declared admissible;                                  decision was subsequently annulled by the Court of First
                                                                            Instance. Following delivery of the judgment annulling the
2.    The actions are dismissed as manifestly unfounded;                    decision, the appointing authority concluded the disciplinary
                                                                            proceedings by imposing on the applicant the disciplinary
3.    The parties are to bear their own costs, including those relating
                                                                            measure of downgrading from grade A3 to grade A6, that
      to the objections of inadmissibility.
                                                                            being a more severe penalty than the one recommended by
                                                                            the Disciplinary Board. The present action is directed against
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000 and OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.                        that decision.
                                                                            In support of his claim for annulment, the applicant argues
                                                                            that the defendant failed to discharge its obligation to establish
                                                                            the veracity of its complaints — the onus of proof being
                                                                            incumbent on it in that regard. It likewise disregarded the
                                                                            presumption of innocence. According to the applicant, his
Action brought on 20 April 2001 by Claude Willeme                           wife’s employment contract was perfectly regular and there
  against the Commission of the European Communities                        was no connection between the duties performed by him and
                                                                            the conclusion of his wife’s employment contract. In addition,
                            (Case T-89/01)                                  he pleads, inter alia, violation of the right to a fair hearing, a
                                                                            manifest error of assessment and the disproportionate nature
                                                                            of the sanction imposed.
                          (2001/C 227/38)
                     (Language of the case: French)                         Lastly, the applicant asserts that the appointing authority is
                                                                            liable for the damage suffered by him as a result of the
                                                                            unlawful acts invoked.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 April 2001 by Claude Willeme,
residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
Laure Levi, avocats.