CELEX: C1996/133/59
Language: en
Date: 1996-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 27 February 1996 by 'U' against the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (Case T-24/96)

4 . 5 . 96           1 fcN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 133/27
Action brought on 27 February 1996 by 'U' against the                 the Centre, towards which one month is counted for each
European Centre for the Development of Vocational                     full year or part of a year of service completed by them, but
                       Training ( Cedefop )                           not in any event for a period of less than six months, or
                         ( Case T-24/96 )                             alternatively to apply for a measure to be taken having the
                                                                      same effect. If, upon the expiry of that period, the grounds
                           ( 96/C 133/59 )                            on which their secondment was allowed have not altered,
                                                                      the secondment can be extended . The Director undertakes
                (Language of the case: German)                        to provide special solutions in the interests of the staff and of
                                                                      the Centre , in compliance with his obligations as an
                                                                      employer .
An action against the European Centre for the Development
                                                                      A general decision of the Director of the Centre of 7 July
of Vocational Training was brought before the Court of
                                                                      1995 , expressly referring to the framework agreement,
First Instance of the European Communities on 27 February
                                                                      provided for the applicant to be assigned for six months to a
1996 by 'U', represented by Dr Frank Montag,
                                                                      Community establishment in Berlin or seconded to a
Rechtsanwalt, Brussels , with an address for service in
                                                                      non-Community establishment there . By individual decision
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
Grand-Rue .
                                                                      of 31 July 1995 , the Director of the Centre stipulated that
                                                                      the applicant should continue to perform his functions by
                                                                      working in the Office of the Commission in Berlin . In
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          accordance with that decision, the applicant has been
                                                                      working in the Commission's Berlin Office since
                                                                      1 September 1995 .
— annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop of
     8 February 1996 ,                                                On 31 January 1996 the applicant applied for his
                                                                      ' secondment' to that Office to be extended . By letter of
— order Cedefop to pay the costs .                                    12 February 1996 the Director of the Centre notified the
                                                                      applicant of his decision of 8 February 1996 assigning the
                                                                      applicant to the Centre in Thessaloniki with effect from
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       1 March 1996 . The letter stated that, if the applicant refused
                                                                      to transfer to Thessaloniki on that date , he would be
                                                                      regarded as having resigned .
The applicant has been employed since 1993 in the service of
the European Centre for the Development of Vocational                 The applicant maintains that, by adopting the contested
Training . He was initially employed for an indefinite period         decision, the defendant first of all refused to extend his
under an employment contract of 12 November 1 993 which               employment in Berlin, and, second, that it moved his place
provided that his place of employment was to be Berlin ,              of employment to Thessaloniki . He contends that both of
where the Centre had its seat at that time .                          those measures are unlawful , since there were insufficient
                                                                      grounds for their adoption , they infringed his rights, and
On 16 May 1994 the Council , acting on a proposal from the            they were incompatible with the principle whereby an
Commission , adopted Regulation ( EC ) No 1131 /94                    administration is bound by its own decisions, together with
amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 337/75 establishing a                  the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and
European Centre for the Development of Vocational                     the general duty of an employer to have regard for the
Training, which provides that the Centre is to have its seat in       welfare and interests of his employees . As regards the alleged
Thessaloniki . The final recital in the preamble to that              alteration of his place of employment, the applicant also
Regulation provides : 'the aspects of the proposal which              complains that, by stipulating an unreasonably short
concern the staff of the Centre should be acted upon at a             deadline , the defendant failed to discharge its duty to have
later stage; . . . this Regulation does not prejudge the              regard for the welfare and interests of its employees , and
position of the Centre's staff'.                                      that that measure was intended to prompt the applicant to
                                                                      tender his resignation, so that it was not based on a proper
                                                                      exercise of discretionary powers .
On 23 January 1995 the Director of the Centre concluded a
framework agreement with the staff representatives
concerning ancillary social measures connected with the
relocation of the seat. That framework agreement provided
inter alia for the implementation of procedures aimed at              Action brought on 6 March 1996 by Orlando Lopes against
granting the members of the staff of the Centre the status of              the Court of Justice of the European Communities
officials of the Communities . The applicant states that, after
the staff of the Centre became subject to the rules applicable                                ( Case T-26/96 )
to officials and other servants of the European                                                 ( 96/C 133/60 )
Communities, he took part in an internal competition and
has since 1 January 1996 been ' stripped' of his status as an                         (Language of tbe case: French)
official . In addition, the framework agreement provided for
measures to be taken in respect of those 'who cannot leave             An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Berlin' ( point 4.3 ). Persons to whom this applies, and who           Communities was brought before the Court of First
furnish the relevant grounds, are entitled to be seconded for          Instance of the European Communities on 6 March 1 996 by
a period calculated on the basis of their period of service in         Orlando Lopes, residing in Luxembourg, represented by