CELEX: C1999/020/59
Language: en
Date: 1999-01-23 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 4 December 1998 by Comune di Sassuolo against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-189/98)

23.1.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 20/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         grade which he deserves. The material damage results
                                                                    from the non-receipt by him of additional remuneration
                                                                    from 1 April 1998, on which date he should have been
Ð annul the decision of the appointing authority of                 promoted.
    6 April 1998, by which it declined to promote the
    applicant to grade A 5 in the context of the 1998
    promotion procedure;
Ð annul the decision of 9 October 1998 rejecting the
    complaint against the contested decision of 6 April
    1998, which was submitted by the applicant on                   Action brought on 4 December 1998 by Comune di
    27 April 1998 and registered in the Secretariat-General         Sassuolo against Commission of the European
    on 6 May 1998 under number R/436/98;                                                    Communities
                                                                                          (Case T-189/98)
Ð order the defendant to pay to the applicant                                              (1999/C 20/59)
    compensation for the material and non-material
    damage suffered by him, fixed on an equitable basis in
    the sum of BEF 250 000, subject to increase or                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
    decrease during the course of the proceedings;
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.                Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance on 4 December 1998 by Comune di Sassuolo,
                                                                    represented by Fabio Dani, of the Ferrara Bar, with an
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                    Alex Schmitt, 71 Rue de AubeÂpines.
The applicant has previously worked     in various capacities
in the European public service (inter   alia as a member of
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
the defendant's Legal Service, as a     legal secretary to a
                                                                    should:
judge at the Court of Justice and        as assistant to the
Director-General of DG XXIV).
                                                                    Ð Annul the decision of Directorate General V of the
In support of his application, he pleads:                               Commission of the European Communities (D(98) DG
                                                                        V.A.4 DC/MG/se/980511 of 12 May 1998),
                                                                        communicated to the applicant Ð the Municipal
Ð infringement of the Staff Regulations, in particular the              Administration of Sassuolo Ð by the Ministry of
    third and fourth paragraphs of Article 24 and                       Employment and Social Security of the Italian
    Article 45(1) thereof;                                              Republic on 5 October 1998;
Ð disregard of the general principles of law, such as the           Ð Order the defendant to pay the costs.
    principle that all administrative acts must be based on
    grounds which are legally admissible Ð that is to say,
    relevant and not vitiated by any error of law or of fact        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    Ð and the principle precluding an outcome which is
    contrary to justice or equity; and
                                                                    The applicant in this case, in Italian municipality, is
Ð breach of the principles of proportionality, equality of          challenging the refusal to extend a pilot project financed
    treatment between officials and the protection of               by the European Social Fund (Ariane Programme) relating
    legitimate expectations.                                        to the testing and development of employment promotion
                                                                    systems.
The applicant maintains that, in adopting the contested
decisions, the appointing authority applied arbitrary and           It must be borne in mind in that respect, first, that,
inequitable criteria which have caused him serious                  according to the project schedule, the final dates for
damage.                                                             determination of the expenses qualifying for a
                                                                    contribution, for final payments to the ultimate
                                                                    beneficiaries and for the evaluation of financing, were
The non-material damage suffered by the applicant results           fixed as, respectively, 31 December 1996, 31 December
from the fact that, despite having been willing to move             1997 and 30 April 1998. The activation of phase 4 of the
jobs in the course of his career with a view to increasing          project, known as Service Management', consisting inter
his experience and knowledge, he has been refused the               alia in the opening of the counter to the public for the
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/34              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.1.1999
purpose of matching vacancies with applications for               unforeseeable circumstances. In fact, that delay was
employment, was subject to some delay owing to                    caused by the fact that the works for alteration of the
alterations to the premises at which the service is located.      premises at which the service in question was provided fell
For that reason application was made for the period of            behind schedule.
operation of the service to be extended until 22 June
1998, and the refusal to grant that application constitutes
                                                                  Nor does the applicant share the view that the request for
the subject-matter of this action.
                                                                  an extension should have been lodged by 31 December
                                                                  1996: the extent of the actual delay had not become
According to the applicant, the decision at issue is the          apparent by that date. In other words, for so long as the
result of manifest misuse of powers and is supported by           Municipality was of the opinion that completion of the
no statement of reasons whatsoever. In its view, it is            project within the time-limits originally announced, was
incomprehensible that the municipality's application for          realistic, it continued its activities and decided to apply for
an extension was refused, involving as it did a period of         an extension only when the real extent of the delay
only one month and a half, attributable to wholly                 became apparent.