CELEX: C1996/388/17
Language: en
Date: 1996-12-21 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 22 October 1996 by Jean-Pierre Pierard against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-169/96)

No C 388/8             EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21 . 12 . 96
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               The applicant claims that the Court should :
                    of 21 November 1996
in Case T- 144/95 : Christos Michael v. Commission of the              — annul the decision of the appointing authority not to
                 European Communities 0 )                                   promote the applicant to grade B 1 in the 1995
                                                                            promotion procedure,
(Promotion — Practical guide to the promotions
procedure — Category A officials — List of officials most
deserving of promotion — List of promoted officials —                  — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision of
          Decision adversely affecting an official)                         the Advisory Committee on grade B promotions not to
                                                                            include the applicant in the list of officials proposed
                            ( 96/C 388/15 )                                 for promotion to grade B 1 in the 1995 promotion
                                                                            procedure,
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs.
In Case T-144/95 : Christos Michael, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by Lucas Vogel and Beatrice                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Gribomont, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian                     The applicant, an official in the service of the Council,
Kremer, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of                  was promoted to grade B 2 on 1 June 1987. She states,
the European Communities ( Agents: Ana Maria Alves                     first, that she has been suffering for over two years from
Vieira and Alberto Dal Ferro ) — application for                       health problems which have on several occasions
annulment of the implied decision rejecting the complaint              necessitated her hospitalization for very short periods .
lodged by the applicant on 7 December 1994 on the basis
of Article 90 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of           The list of officials , proposed by the Advisory Committee
the European Communities against a decision of the                     for promotion to grade B 1 , dated 7 December 1995 , does
Commission drawing up the list of officials promoted to                not contain the name of the applicant. She considers that
Grade A 4 in the 1994 promotion procedure — the Court                  the representatives of the administration opposed her
of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K.                   promotion by reason of her absence on sick leave . She
Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J.              pleads infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations,
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a             breach of the opinion of the Joint Committee and
judgment on 21 November 1996 , the operative part of                   contravention of Staff Communication No P 76/93 of
which is as follows :
                                                                       16 July 1993 .
1 . The Commission 's decision not to promote the
    applicant to Grade A 4 in the 1994 promotion                       By her second plea, the applicant alleges infringement of
    procedure is annulled.                                             the obligation imposed by Article 25 of the Staff
                                                                       Regulations to provide a statement of reasons . The
                                                                       applicant maintains that the Council refused to
2 . The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.                        communicate to her the criteria             used to assess the
                                                                       comparative merits of officials eligible for promotion to
0 ) OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .                                      grade B 2 . The contested decisions are also vitiated by a
                                                                       total absence of any statement of reasons, or at least by a
                                                                       blatantly inadequate statement of reasons, and must
                                                                       consequently be annulled .
Action brought on 22 October 1996 by Catherine Patronis
        against the Council of the European Union
                          ( Case T-168/96 )
                            ( 96/C 388/ 16                             Action brought on 22 October 1996 by Jean-Pierre
                                                                       Pierard against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                   Communities
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                                ( Case T- 169/96 )
An action against the Council of the European Union was                                           ( 96/C 388/ 17
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 22 October 1996 by Catherine Patronis,
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis,                                  (Language of the case: French)
Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices               An action against the Commission of European
of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- 21 . 12 . 96          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 388 /9
Instance of the European Communities on 22 October                   Action brought on 23 October 1996 by 'A' against the
1996 by Jean-Pierre Pierard, residing in Brussels,                             Commission of the European Communities
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an                                  (Case T- 170/96 )
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                                   ( 96/C 388/ 18
                                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
— annul the decision of the Central Staff Committee
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
     rejecting the proposals made by Mr Chambellant for              Instance of the European Communities on 23 October
     appointments within the organs set up under the Staff           1996 by 'A', residing at Luxembourg, represented by
     Regulations and administrative bodies,                          Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the express                  Myson Sari, 30 Rue Cessange .
     decision adopted by the Commission rejecting the
     applicant's complaint,                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare that the 'Rules laying down the composition                — annul the appointing authority's implied decision
     and operation of the Staff Committee' and the                        rejecting the applicant's claim for damages of
     'Transitional arrangements for the representation of                  19 October 1995 and, in so far as necessary, annul the
     staff serving outside the Community' are illegal,                    appointing authority's decision of 9 July 1996 not to
     inasmuch as they do not confer local section status on               uphold the applicant's complaint in its entirety,
     representatives of staff serving outside the Community
     and provide for such staff to have only minimal                 — order the Commission to pay provisional damages in
     representation (3 members) on the Central Staff                      the sum of Bfrs 530 000 for the whole of the damage
     Committee ,                                                          suffered,
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            — order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The applicant maintains that she suffered material and
By letter of 11 April 1995 , the representative of staff             non-material damage as a result of, first, the decision of
serving outside the Community submitted a request to the             20 July 1995 whereby she was compulsorily transferred
Chairman of the Central Staff Committee on behalf of the             and, secondly, by the delay in drawing up her staff report
24 elected regional representatives concerning the                   for the period 1991 to 1993 .
appointment of a number of officials and other servants
within the various bodies. By letter of 11 October 1995 ,            The applicant points out that her compulsory transfer,
the Chairman of the Central Staff Committee replied that             which forms the subject-matter of an action for annulment
it was not possible to give a positive response to that              which is currently pending (*), is unlawful in various ways
request, in view of the fact that there was no local                 ( infringement of Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff
committee representing staff serving outside the Union. In           Regulations, infringement of Article 7 of the Staff
response to that decision, the applicant lodged a                    Regulations, breach of the duty to have regard for the
complaint which was subsequently expressly rejected.                 welfare of officials, misuse of powers, lack of a proper
                                                                     statement of reasons, infringement of Article 26 of the
In opposition to that decision, the applicant pleads                 Staff Regulations, breach of the right to be heard and
infringement of Article 9 of the Staff Regulations, since            breach of the principle of good management and sound
the specific interests of staff serving outside the                  administration) which constitute as many service-related
Community are not represented or taken into account by               faults committed by the defendant.
the   Staff Committee .    He    further  considers   that the
decision disregards Article 14 of the Rules laying down              The applicant maintains that in consequence of that
the composition and operation of the Staff Committee and             unlawful decision she has suffered non-material damage in
necessarily gives rise to discrimination by comparison with          three respects in that:
other officials who are represented within local sections.
                                                                     — the period within which the decision was both taken
The applicant maintains that the rejection of the request is              and put into effect was particularly short, which
totally contrary to Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff                    resulted in a hurried departure which necessarily
Regulations and, in particular, to the principle of direct                prejudiced her reputation and her honour,
representation for European officials. The applicant
additionally pleads that the Commission has completely               — the decision at issue seriously affected her physical and
failed to discharge its duty to have regard for the welfare               mental health,
and interests of officials and to provide protection and
assistance to staff serving outside the Community.                   — it involved a transfer to a post for which she had
                                                                          neither the experience nor a liking and which does not