CELEX: C1995/074/30
Language: en
Date: 1995-03-25 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 6 February 1995 by Spyridoulia Alexopoulou against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-17/95)

25 . 3 . 95           EN                  Official Journal -of the European Communities                              No C 74/15
his application for the three posts in question was adopted in        Pleas in law and main arguments
breach of the order of priority laid down in Article 29 of the
Regulations and in point 6 of the vacancy notice, which               The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
specifically stated that the appointing authority would               Case T-20/94 .
consider whether the posts could be filled by transfer
according to priority.
The applicant also points out that the appointing authority
breached the vacancy notice by selecting candidates by
reference to criteria other than those appearing in the said          Action brought on 6 February 1995 by Gerd Kühle against
notice . He points out that the appointing authority                  Council of the European Union and Commission of the
expressly acknowledged that it had made its choice from                                 European Communities
among agents with occupational experience as messengers                                     ( Case T-16/95 )
who already occupied such posts .
                                                                                              ( 95/C 74/29
Furthermore, the applicant considers that the contested
decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and was                      (Language of the case: German)
adopted in breach of the gurantees given under Article 45 of
the Regulations.                                                      An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities was brought
Finally, the applicant alleges that the defendant failed, even        before the Court of First Instance of the European
when giving a reply expressly rejecting his complaint, to             Communities on 6 February 1995 by Gerd Kühle, Berge
provide the information which would enable him to                     ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Bernd
ascertain whether the contested decision was valid .                  Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Frank
                                                                      Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Munster,
                                                                      with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                      of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
Action brought on 27 January 1995 by Josef Blum against                    SLOM I compensation for the period from 7 May 1986
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                       to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 8 952,80,
                    European Communities                                  together with interest thereon at 8 % from 1 9 May
                                                                           1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;
                         ( Case T-14/95 )
                            95/C 74/28                                2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case
                                                                          T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
                                                                           Commission and also stay the proceedings .
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities was brought                    The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
before the Court of First Instance of the European                    Case T-20/94 .
Communities on 27 January 1995 by Josef Blum, Hallschlag
(Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Bernd
Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Frank
Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Munster,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains.                              Action brought on 6 February 1995 by Spyridoulia
                                                                      Alexopoulou against the Commission of the European
                                                                                              Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                                             (Case T-17/95 )
 1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant                                      ( 95/C 74/30 )
     SLOM III compensation for the period from 19 October
     1985 to 29 July 1993 in the amount of DM 29 355,23 ,                            (Language of the case: French)
     together with interest thereon at 8% from 19 May
     1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;           An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case           Instance of the European Communities on 6 February 1995
     T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and                      by Spyridoulia Alexopoulou, residing in Brussels (Belgium),
     Commission and also stay the proceedings .                       represented by Constantin Nikis, of the Brussels Bar, with
 ---pagebreak--- No C 74/16             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  25 . 3 . 95
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of              Dietrich Manstetten, Frank Schulze and Winfried
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.                             Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Munster, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &
                                                                     Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare the action admissible and well founded,                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 5 April          1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
    1994 appointing the applicant to grade A7, step 5, and               SLOM I compensation for the period from 16 October
    the implicit refusal to appoint her to grade A6,                      1985 to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 53 550,
                                                                         together with interest thereon at 8% from 19 May
— annul the implied decision rejecting the complaint                      1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;
    submitted by the applicant on 4 July 1994, which was
    received in the Secretariat-General of the Commission            2 . joint the present action to that already pending in Case
    on 4 July 1994,                                                      T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
                                                                         Commission and also stay the proceedings.
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
The applicant, an official in grade A7, step 5 , contests the        Case T-20/94 .
decision of the appointing authority refusing to appoint her
to grade A6.
She pleads, first, an infringement of Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff
Regulations, and also contends that there has been a
manifest error of assessment in the present case, in that her
appointment takes into account neither her considerable
professional experience in the field in which she has been           Action brought on 9 February 1995 by Therese Schweiger
established nor her significant intellectual and human               against Council of the European Union and Commission of
qualities.                                                                            the European Communities
                                                                                            Case T-22/95 )
The applicant further asserts that Article 5 ( 3)of the Staff                                ( 95/C 74/32 )
Regulations and the principle of equality of treatment of
officials have been disregarded, inasmuch as she was
appointed to grade A7 whilst , other officials possessing                          (Language of the case: German)
qualifications and professional experience inferior to, or at
best equivalent to, her own were appointed to grade A6 in
the context of a recruitment competition based on tests or           An action against the Council of the European Union and
on qualifications and tests.                                         Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                     before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 9 February 1995 by Therese Schweiger,
                                                                     Ampfing (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by
                                                                     Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten,
                                                                     Frank Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte,
                                                                     Munster, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Chambers of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
Action brought on 8 February 1995 by Burghardt Wetterau
against Council of the European Union and Commission of
                 the European Communities                           The applicant claims that the Court should :
                        (Case T-20/95 )
                          ( 95/C 74/31 )                             1 . order the defendants jointly to pay the applicant
                                                                         SLOM I compensation for the period from 2 April 1984
                                                                         to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 193 229 ,
              (Language of the case: German)                             together with interest thereon at 8 % from 19 May
                                                                         1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings as
                                                                         well as those of the assessor in the amount of DM
An action against the Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities was brought                       3 663,43 ;
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 8 February 1995 by Burghardt Wetterau,               2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case
Sontra-Lindenau (Federal Republic of Germany),                           T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,                      Commission and also stay the proceedings .