CELEX: C1996/388/18
Language: en
Date: 1996-12-21 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 23 October 1996 by 'A' against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-170/96)

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
 ---pagebreak--- No c 388/ 10           Len                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21 . 12 . 96
      at all correspond to the qualifications and competence              defendant observes that Article 6 of Annex V to the Staff
      acquired in her previous post.                                      Regulations uses in this regard the expression ' may' grant,
                                                                          and that consequently, in so far as that provision gives it a
She further considers that the decision in question caused                discretion, it does not confer any right on officials to
her material damage, first, because her chances of                        special leave in the event of a serious illness of a child. In
promotion are greatly reduced as a result of her transfer                 stating its reasons for refusing her application, the
and, secondly, because the aforementioned health                          Commission also refers to internal directives requiring the
problems entail an additional financial burden for her.                   applicant to submit medical certificates attesting to a
                                                                          serious illness .
The applicant concludes that the Commission's liability is
thereby established and that it must make good the                        The applicant argues in the first place that, apart from
damage caused.                                                            annual leave, which is an automatic entitlement, the Staff
                                                                          Regulations provide for special leave which must be
                                                                          granted in so far as the conditions for entitlement thereto
As regards the delay in drawing up her staff report for the               are fulfilled and the official applies for it. Accordingly, the
period 1991 to 1993 , the applicant observes that the draft               expressions ' may be granted ' or 'may grant' do not mean
report was not presented to her until 13 September 1995 ,                 that the institution has a discretion in the matter, but
and then only after she had formally required the                         simply declares that it has the legal capacity to grant such
appointing authority to fulfil its duties towards her. In                 leave .
consequence of that delay, it was not possible for her to be
taken into consideration by the Promotion Committee
when considering promotions from one career bracket to                    As far as the internal directives are concerned, the
another for 1994 and 1995 . The delay thus adversely                      applicant categorically denies that they may be relied upon
affected her legitimate expectations and rights in respect                against her. She is completely ignorant of those directives.
of promotions and the defendant should make good the                      What is more, the Commission has not provided her with
material damage arising therefrom.                                        any information which would enable her to identify them
                                                                          or refer to them . Accordingly, she does not know which
                                                                          authority adopted those directives or under what
f 1 ) Case T-78/96 , OJ No C 233 , 19 . 8 . 1996 , p. 12 .
                                                                          procedure they were issued. By the same token, she does
                                                                          not know what the legal force of those directives may be .
Action brought on 29 October 1996 by Teresa Maria
Rodrigues Gomes De Oliveira against the Commission of                     Action brought on 4 November 1996 by Cornelis Volger
                     the European Communities                                            against the European Parliament
                          ( Case T-173 /96 )
                                                                                                   Case T-l 76/96 )
                            ( 96/C 388/ 19 )
                                                                                                   ( 96/C 388/20 )
                  (Language of the case: French)                                            (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                          An action against the European Parliament was brought
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         hefore the Court of First Instance of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 29 October                        Communities on 4 November 1996 by Cornelis Volger,
 1996 by Teresa Maria Rodrigues Gomes De Oliveira,                        resident at Heffingen ( Luxembourg ), represented by Jean­
resident in Luxembourg, represented by Alain Lorang, of                   Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure And Ariane Tornel, of the
the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service at his                    Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Chambers, 51 Rue Albert l er.                                             Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the decision of the Commission,                                   — annul the decision of 1 December 1995 assigning the
                                                                               applicant to non-active status with effect from the
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                      evening of 30 November 1995 and all subsequent
                                                                               decisions relating thereto, in particular the decision no
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            longer to pay him the remuneration and the
                                                                               allowances to which he is entitled,
The applicant, an official of grade LA 6 , challenges the
appointing authority's refusal to grant her three days'                   — annul, in so far as necessary,              the decision of
special leave, corresponding to the period covered by three                    3 September 1996 fixing 1 February 1996 as the date
medical certificates relating to a serious illness of her two                  on which the aforementioned decision took effect,
children which stressed the need for the mother to remain
with them . In the decision refusing her request, the                     — order the defendant to pay the costs.