You are on page 1of 1

10.10.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 312/19

Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the The applicant claims that the Court should:
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
Ð annul the decision to deduct from the applicant's
The applicant claims that the Court should: salary the sum of BFR 160 750 in respect of
transport/mission expenses (FO)',
Ð annul the decision not to renew his contract as a
member of the temporary staff attached to the Ð order the Commission to repay to the applicant the
European Training Foundation, sums improperly deducted, together with interest at
the rate of 8 % per annum from the date on which the
Ð annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision deduction was made to the date of repayment,
concerning the drawing-up of the applicant's
assessment report for the period 1995 to 1997, Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.

Ð order the defendant to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: The applicant contests the refusal of the appointing
authority to pay the cost of business class air travel for
The applicant, a member of the temporary staff of the him and his family from Brussels to Los Angeles via
European Training Foundation, contests the refusal to London, undertaken pursuant to the travel order signed by
renew his contract as a temporary staff member. his hierarchical superior, the Director-General of DG XXIII
and the Director-General of Personnel and Administration,
In support of his claims, he asserts, first, that there has as authorising officer. That refusal is based, in particular,
been a manifest error of assessment in the present case. He on the considerations that, under the fellowship rules',
states in that regard that his assessment report is which are more restrictive than the provisions of the Staff
incomplete and that it does not therefore reflect all the Regulations governing missions, travel arrangements must
tasks performed by him during the term of his contract. be made on the basis of the most economical fare
Similarly, the applicant complains in particular of the lack available, and that the Commission is to bear the cost of
of appreciation of the considerable amount of work the ticket of only one child. According to the defendant,
carried out in the context of the MEDA programme, as the provisions applicable to ordinary missions cannot be
well as the error resulting from the statement applied to fellowship' missions, since specific rules have
unsatisfactory' appearing under the heading relating to been adopted in the latter regard.
performance of tasks involving the management of
financial and other resources, no task of that kind having In support of his claims, the applicant maintains, first,
been entrusted to him. It was on the basis of such a that the special rules applicable to fellowship' missions,
defective assessment, therefore, that the authority adopted in the form of a simple administrative decision,
empowered to conclude contracts decided not to renew are illegal, in that they infringe Article 11 et seq. of
the applicant's contract. Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and Article 3 of the
Guide des Missions'. He states in the alternative, with
Second, the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to regard to that point, that the administrative provisions
provide an adequate statement of reasons, making it relied on by the appointing authority do not require the
impossible for the Community judicature to assess official concerned to travel in the cheapest class but
whether it is justified. merely to procure a ticket at the most economical rate for
the class in which he is authorised to travel.

The applicant further maintains that, according to


Community case-law, he was entitled to rely on the
apparent legality of the travel order, and could therefore
Action brought on 2 August 1998 by Luc Veron against legitimately expect that all the provisions of that order
the Commission of the European Communities would be upheld. In those circumstances, he must be
regarded as having acquired a legitimate expectation that
(Case T-125/98)
all the provisions contained in the relevant travel order
(98/C 312/46) would be lawful. In the alternative, the applicant claims
that, even if the travel order was unlawfully drawn up, the
(Language of the case: French) Commission failed to withdraw it within a reasonable
time.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Lastly, the applicant also claims that there has been a
Instance of the European Communities on 2 August 1998 manifest error of assessment in the present case, together
by Luc Veron, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean- with breaches, operating to his detriment, of the principle
NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and of equal treatment and of the right to keep the family
FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address together as a unit.
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.