You are on page 1of 2

C 278/38 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 5.9.


The training programmes were carried out, as will expenditure for non-teaching expert, administrative
be shown below, in strict compliance with and and secretarial staff for the project' but as specialist
observance of the conditions imposed by the original work which, by its very nature is carried out by third
approval decision. parties.

Ð Contravention of the law Ð Unlawfulness Ð Error of The Decision is based on different criteria and on
assessment of the facts: whether E. B., L.da, a sub-contractor, is entitled to
make legitimate profits.

The applicant complied completely and rigorously
The DAFSE and the Commission always accepted, by
with all the requirements imposed by the Commission
means of the discretion applied in respect of the
as laid down in the decision approving the application
period from 1986 to 1989, profit calculated on the
and the legislation and, in particular, with that of
basis of 50 % of the costs borne by the subcontractors,
imparting vocational training to 36 and 300 persons
so that the profit made by E. B., L.da was within the
(in the two files, respectively) whose skills were
bounds accepted by the DAFSE and the Commission.
inadequate to permit their entry into the labour

The contested decision alleges that certain expenditure
incurred by the applicant did not fulfil the conditions
laid down in the approval decision. Action brought on 28 May 1998 by Marie Costigan
against the Council of the European Union
For that reason it proposes to suspend final payment (Case T-84/98)
on the grounds set out in the report drawn up by the (98/C 278/84)
InspeccËaÄo-Geral de FinancËas (Inspectorate General for
(Language of the case: English)

Thus, the contested decision was based exclusively, by
reference, to that report of the InspeccËaÄo-Geral de An action against the Council of the European Union was
FinancËas. brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 28 May 1998 by Marie Costigan,
represented by SeÂamas O'Tuathail, instructed by Lehane
There is therefore an error of assessment of the facts & Hogan, Solicitors, of 1 Upper Ormond Quay, Dublin 7,
in the contested decision since the Commission, by Ireland.
basing itself exclusively on that report, committed the
same errors as to the facts as the report itself. The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant used the payment to trainees of Ð annul Decision No 677/97 of the Secretary-General of
attendance and merit bonuses in order to keep them the Council of the European Union of 11 July 1997,
interested and to maximise learning, a policy which
gave optimum results and resulted in zero absenteeism,
none of which is contrary to the original approval Ð reinstate Marie Costigan to her former post or
decision. position with the Council of the European Union
without any loss or diminution in her status, salary or
incidental benefits,
The applicant contracted a specialist organisation to
provide assistance and to provide greater quality to
Ð annul all subsequent decisions following on or giving
the courses taught.
effect in any way to or emanating from Decision
No 677/97, mentioned above, made by or on behalf of
the Secretary-General of the Council of the European
The applicant subcontracted the services of that
Union, his servants or agents,
organisation, engaging teaching staff and concluding
contracts for expert educational assessments and
vocational guidance and budget management services. Ð annul the decision made on 14 June 1996 by the
Secretary-General of the Council of the European
Union to refer the case of the applicant to the
Reference to such subcontracting, which is permitted Invalidity Committee,
by the legislation and by the Commission's approval
decision, was already to be found in the application,
at least implicity, inasmuch as the estimated costs Ð declare the conclusions of the Invalidity Committee
associated with such work did not appear as arrived at on 9 July 1997 to be null and void,
5.9.98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 278/39

Ð order the Council to pay the applicant all arrears of the applicant suffered from total permanent invalidity
salary owned to her and accruing from 1 August 1997 or incapacity, the appointing authority could not make
as well as all incidental benefits pertaining thereto, a determination under Articles 53 and 78 of the Staff
together with interest at a rate of 10 % per annum on Regulations.
such arrears according as they fell due or would have
been paid had it not been for Decision No 677/97,
Ð The facts in the present case indicate that the
referred to above,
Invalidity Committee convened by the Council
was established not for the purpose of investigating
whether the applicant was suffering from a total and
Ð order the Council to pay the applicant the sum of BEF permanent incapacity to carry out her duties, but as a
3 000 000 (three million Belgian francs) for non- means of retiring her from the service of the Council.
material damage, From this point of view, the whole invalidity
procedure should be considered as vitiated by a misuse
of powers.
Ð annul the findings of the Secretary-General of the
Council made on 12 February 1998, rejecting the
applicant's complaint of 15 October 1997 and
confirming that Decision No 677/97 remains valid,

Action brought on 6 July 1998 by Gisela Stodtmeister
Ð award Marie Costigan the costs of the proceedings. against the Council of the European Union
(Case T-101/98)
(98/C 278/85)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:

(Language of the case: French)
The applicant in the present case, an official of the
Council affected by a decision declaring her invalidity An action against the Council of the European Union was
(Decision No 677/97), challenges the definitive decision of brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
invalidity, as well as the preliminary decision establishing Communities on 6 July 1998 by Gisela Stodtmeister,
an Invalidity Committee in regard to her case and its residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by Georges
conclusions, on which basis the first decision was adopted. Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson sarl, 30 rue de Cessange.
In support of her conclusions, the applicant submits that:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð The Invalidity Committee wrongly finds that she
suffers from an invalidity which is considered as total, Ð annul the decisions concerning promotion to grade A 3
preventing her from performing the duties adopted for 1997 by the appointing authority on
corresponding to a post in her career bracket. This 17 November 1997,
statement does not provide any reasons that would
enable the reader to assess the considerations upon
Ð annul the decision not to promote the applicant to
which it is based. Furthermore, since the conclusions
grade A 3 adopted in the context of the 1997
make no reference whatsoever to any medical findings,
promotions procedure, with the legal consequence
no link could be established between the medical
flowing therefrom, namely reinstatement of the
findings (if any) of the Invalidity Committee and
applicant's career from 1 January until the date of her
its conclusions. Decision No 677/97 is accordingly
retirement or until the date of her promotion to grade
vitiated by a procedural irregularity.
A 3,

Ð The defendant did not have the power to adopt Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Decision No 677/97 on three grounds. First, an
appointing authority can refer the case of an official to Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the Invalidity Committee only where that individual's
sick-leave totals more than 12 months in a period of
three years as per the fourth subparagraph of The applicant states that the procedure for drawing up
Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations, which has not staff reports was not correctly followed as regards her
been established in the present case. Second, the staff report for the period 1993 to 1994. Consequently,
Invalidity Committee never examined the applicant. when the Advisory Committee on Promotion for
The contested decision was thus adopted without Category A officials met, it did not have available to it
any medical basis. Third, as the conclusions of the any staff report relating to the applicant for that period. It
Invalidity Committee themselves do not establish that therefore omitted to take the applicant's merits and