You are on page 1of 2

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,
and

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
C 278/40 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 5.9.98

abilities into consideration for the 1997 promotion period, Ð request the defendant to produce the minutes of the
with the result that it was unable, to the detriment proceedings of the selection board and the reasoned
of the applicant's interests, to carry out any valid report of that Selection Board,
examination of the comparative merits of each of the
candidates for promotion. According to the applicant, it Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
follows that the contested decisions were adopted in
breach of Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations of Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
officials and of the principle of non-discrimination.
In support of her claim, the applicant pleads, first, breach
of the principle of non-discrimination; she maintains that
she was obliged to sit the compulsory written tests under
conditions and circumstances which were different from
Action brought on 6 July 1998 by Christina Papadeas those applying to the other candidates, solely on account
against the Committee of the Regions of the fact that she chose Greek, her mother tongue, as the
language of the competition.
(Case T-102/98)
(98/C 278/86) She also considers that the Selection Board disregarded the
(Language of the case: French) terms of the notice of competition, in that, first, it failed
in its letter to comply with that notice as regards the
An action against the Committee of the Regions was procedure for holding the first test and, second, it decided
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European not to admit her to the oral test although the notice did
Communities on 6 July 1998 by Christina Papadeas, not provide for that possibility.
residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden
and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for The applicant further maintains that the administration
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson committed a breach of the principles of proper
sarl, 30 rue de Cessange. management and sound administration and failed to fultil
its duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
The applicant claims that the Court should: officials, inasmuch as it omitted to ensure that the work
Ð declare the present application admissible and well apparatus which was made available to the candidates
founded, was functioning properly at the time of the tests
irrespective of the language chosen by each candidate.
Ð annul the decision of the Selection Board in internal
competition No C/01/97 not to admit the applicant to Lastly, she considers that the fact that participation in the
the oral test, which decision was notified to the recruitment procedure initiated by the notice of internal
applicant by letter from the chairman of the Selection competition at issue was open not only to staff members
Board of 8 December 1997, and, in so far as may be of the Committee of the Regions but also to staff members
necessary, annul the decision contained in a letter sent of the Economic and Social Committee constitutes an
by the appointing authority to the applicant's legal infringement of Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations of
advisers on 8 April 1998, officials.