CELEX: C1996/354/59
Language: en
Date: 1996-11-23 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 19 September 1996 by Maria Graça de Abreu against the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Case T-146/96)

23 . 11 . 96             KN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 354/29
      — The Commission did not submit a proposal for a                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
          generic list to the Council before the entry into force
          of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 .                           — annul the disciplinary decision removing the applicant
                                                                            from his post, adopted by the defendant on 19 January
      — Failure to make public the product specification for                1996 ,
          feta .
      — Failure to make public the list of approved                     — annul the express decision of 1 7 June 1 996 by which the
          supervisory bodies .                                              defendant rejected the applicant's complaint of 5 March
                                                                             1996 ,
      — In determining whether feta should be registered, the
          Commission failed to follow sound administrative              — order the European Parliament to pay the costs .
          practice .
3 . Feta does not meet the conditions for registration                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      pursuant to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 and the
      registration of feta therefore infringes rules of law             The applicant alleges, first, breach of the obligation to state
      relating to the application of the Treaty within the              the reasons on which a decision is based . He states that the
      meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the             contested disciplinary decision is based on a finding against
      Treaty:                                                           him in criminal proceedings before the Tribunal de Premiere
                                                                        Instance ( Court of First Instance ), Brussels, but fails to take
      — Feta is a generic description .                                 account of the mitigating circumstances accepted by that
                                                                        court at two successive stages in the criminal proceedings .
      — The designation feta does not fulfil the conditions             The applicant considers that the disciplinary authority
          for registration as an indirect designation of origin         thereby failed in its obligation to give reasons , by virtue of
          under Article 2 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC )                   which it was required to examine all relevant information
          No 2081 /92 .
                                                                        before adopting the major penalty of removal of the
                                                                        applicant from his post, and committed a manifest error of
4 . The registration of feta infringes fundamental principles           assessment .
      of EC law and thus the Treaty, including Article 6 and
      Article 40 ( 3 ), and the principle of the protection of          The applicant also alleges breach of the duty to have regard
      legitimate expectations for the purposes of the second            for the welfare of officials . He criticizes the disciplinary
      paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty:                           authority for not taking account of his state of health, even
      — The registration of feta as a protected designation of          though the criminal court considered that it warranted a
          origin for the benefit of Greek producers represents          shorter period of imprisonment, suspended subject only to
          discrimination against the applicants in breach of            the condition that his health be monitored by a doctor. For
          Article 6 and Article 40 ( 3 ) of the Treaty.                 the applicant, reasonable discharge of the duty to have
                                                                        regard for the welfare of officials justified a minor
      — The registration of feta in Regulation ( EC )                   disciplinary sanction rather than the major sanction of
          No 1107/96 breaches the principle of the protection           removal from his post.
          of legitimate expectations .
                                                                        Finally, the applicant contends that the disciplinary decision
C ) OJ No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996 , p . 1 .                               undermined his right to a fair hearing since, in its preamble ,
( 2 ) OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .                             it refers to his ' subsequent attitude' regarding the matters
                                                                        criticized, but gives no specific information relating to such
                                                                        matters .
Action brought on 16 September 1996 by 'Y' against the
                        European Parliament
                           ( Case T-144/96 )                            Action brought on 19 September 1996 by Maria Gra^a de
                                                                        Abreu against the Court of Justice of the European
                             ( 96/C 354/58 )                                                       Communities
                                                                                                ( Case T-146/96 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                                                    96/C 354/59 )
An action against the European Parliament was brought                                   (Language of the case: French)
 before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 16 September 1996 by 'Y', represented by
Gerard Colin , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service          An action against the Court of Justice of the European
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari ,                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
 30 Rue de Cessange .                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 19 September
 ---pagebreak---  No C 354/30           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23 . 11 . 96
 1996 by Maria Graga de Abreu, residing in Luxembourg,               Action brought on 19 September 1996 by Howard Batho
 represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                 against the Commission of the European Communities
 Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                                    ( Case T-147/96 )
 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
 Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                                                   ( 96/C 354/60 )
                                                                                    (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 Court of Justice appointing the          Communities was brought before the Court of First
     applicant to the post of typist in Grade C4 in so far as it     Instance of the European Communities on 19 September
     places her in the third step of that grade;                     1996 by Howard Batho, residing at Kraainem ( Belgium ),
                                                                     represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
                                                                     Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                     Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, contests the    — annul the decision of the appointing authority
decision of the appointing authority appointing her as a                 confirming, following re-examination of his
probationary official in Grade C4 , step 3 .                             administrative status, the applicant's classification in
                                                                         grade A7,
Originally recruited by the defendant as a member of the            — order the defendant to pay the costs .
temporary staff in Grade C4, she was promoted on 15 July
1993 to Grade C3 , step 4 . After passing open competition
EUR/C/22 , she was finally made a probationary official by          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
virtue of the contested decision . Thus, although recruited to
the post she already occupied, she was not appointed as a
probationary official in the grade which she held before her        The applicant contests the appointing authority's decision
appointment.                                                        confirming his classification in grade A7 upon his
                                                                    appointment as a probationary official in consequence of
                                                                    the placing of his name on the list of suitable candidates in
The applicant claims, in support of her application, that           open competition COM/A/762 . Prior to that appointment,
Council Regulation ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 3947/92 is             the applicant had worked for the defendant institution in the
unlawful in that Article 8 thereof requires a member of the         respective positions of national expert on secondment,
temporary staff to be appointed as an official in his or her        temporary agent and member of the auxiliary staff. In the
existing grade in order to be entitled to maintain his or her       context of his duties in the latter post, he had been classified ,
former step . In her opinion, that system of appointment:           in view of his professional experience , in grade A5 , step 3 .
                                                                    He had submitted an initial complaint against his
— penalizes members of the temporary staff who have been            appointment to grade A7; that complaint was expressly
    promoted on their merits, as compared with colleagues           rejected by a decision which had become final . In
    of less merit who, for their part, retain their seniority in    consequence of the judgment of the Court of First Instance
                                                                    of 5 October 1995 in Case T-17/95 Alexopoulou v.
    step ,
                                                                    Commission , the applicant applied for revision of the
                                                                    decision classifying him in grade A7 . The rejection of that
— contravenes the principle of career development, since it         application forms the subject-matter of the present
    runs counter to the obligation to encourage, through            dispute .
    promotion, the professional ambitions of the most
    meritorious, best qualified and most experienced
    members of the temporary staff,                                 In support of his claim, he pleads a manifest error of
                                                                    assessment. He points out in that regard that he was
                                                                    recruited as a probationary official in order to perform the
— also contravenes the principle of sound administration            duties attaching to the post occupied by him as a temporary
    since it limits the career prospects of temporary staff in      agent and subsequently as a grade A5 member of the
    the event of their being awarded a promotion, which             auxiliary staff. He considers that, in view of his recruitment
    demotivates the best qualified and most efficient staff         to his post, and having regard to the five years and eleven
    members .
                                                                    months of additional professional experience gained by him ,
                                                                    it is not open to the Commission to assert that the specific
                                                                    needs of the service did not require the recruitment of an
                                                                    official with particular qualifications to perform the duties
                                                                    attaching to the post at issue .