You are on page 1of 2

C 45/24 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10.2.

2001

Pleas in law and main arguments The applicants claims that the Court should:

The applicant states that he was informed in August 1999 of — annul the decision of 12 January 2000 rejecting the
his appointment to the post of head of unit DG XIII/G/2 and request submitted by Ms Dubigh on 24 September 1999
of his promotion to grade A3, but that the Director-General for the regularisation of her administrative situation by
for Personnel announced to him in February 2000 that he had the acknowledgement of her status as a temporary agent
decided to annul those decisions in the light of a complaint from 12 May 1997 and the conferment on her of the
submitted by an official who had also applied for the post in rights attaching thereto;
question. In the present proceedings, the applicant contests
that decision withdrawing his appointment and promotion. — annul the decision of 12 January 2000 rejecting the
request submitted by Ms Zaur-Gora on 24 September
He maintains that the decision which has been withdrawn: 1999 for the regularisation of her administrative situation
by the acknowledgement of her status as a temporary
— was not adopted in breach of Article 45 of the Staff agent from 22 May 1997 and the conferment on her of
Regulations of officials or of vacancy notices 07 of the rights attaching thereto;
2 February 2000, inasmuch as those rules were scrupu-
lously observed, having regard to the seniority criteria — order the defendant to pay the costs.
needing to be fulfilled in order to qualify for promotion;

— was not adopted on the basis of any manifest error of Pleas in law and main arguments
assessment in the examination of the comparative merits
and staff reports of the candidates, or in breach of any of
the vacancy notices in issue; and The applicants state that, since 12 May and 22 May 1997
respectively, they have performed, without interruption, the
— is not vitiated by any misuse of powers on the part of the same duties as secretaries/typists in the same units, working
appointing authority. successively as members of the interim staff and as members
of the auxiliary staff. In their view, the formal nature of the
contracts and the classification applied to them by the parties
In addition, as regards the contested decision, the applicant
had no effect on the de facto circumstances.
pleads:

— infringement of the right to a fair hearing; Thus, the tasks carried out by the applicants are characterised
by their continuity; the duties performed by them have been
— infringement of the obligation to provide a statement of of a permanent nature.
reasons;

— infringement of the principle of the protection of legit- In support of their claims, the applicants plead infringement
imate expectations; and of the principles of sound administration and proper staff
management, together with a misuse of powers in the present
— infringement of the principles of equal treatment, pro- case.
portionality and sound administration.

Action brought on 11 December 2000 by Danielle Dubigh Action brought on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo Mor-
and Tamara Zaur-Gora against the Commission of the ello against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities ties

(Case T-375/00) (Case T-378/00)

(2001/C 45/50) (2001/C 45/51)

(Language of the case: French)
(Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 11 December 2000 by Danielle ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Dubigh, residing in Brussels, and Tamara Zaur-Gora, residing European Communities on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo
at Lodelinsart (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon
Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar. and Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar.
10.2.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 45/25

The applicant claims that the Court should: Ajour and others, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
— annul the Commission’s decision appointing another
person to post COM/001/00 COMP/D/3 ‘Trade and other The applicants claim that the Court should:
services’, being a grade A3 head of unit post;
— annul the decisions of the Commission concerning the
— annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the application drawing-up of the applicants’ pay slips in respect of the
of the applicant for the post in question; arrears of remuneration due to them for the period from
15 May to 31 December 1999 and their pay slips drawn
— award the sum of 120 000 euro, subject to increase or up since January 2000, pursuant to Council Regulation
decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of No 2700/1999 of 17 December 1999 adjusting with
compensation for the non-material damage suffered by effect from 1 July 1999 the remuneration and pensions
the applicant as a result of the irregular or incomplete of officials and other servants of the European Communi-
information gathered by the defendant in relation to the ties and the weightings applied thereto;
applicant’s personal file and the state of uncertainty and
worry in which he has been placed with regard to his — as regards the applicants to whom the decision of
14 April 2000 is not addressed, annul the decisions of
future career;
the Commission concerning the drawing-up of their pay
— award the sum of 25 000 euro, subject to increase or slips since January 2000;
decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of — order the defendant to pay the costs.
compensation for the material damage suffered by the
applicant as a result of his having been rejected as a
candidate for the post to be filled and of his having thus Pleas in law and main arguments
lost an opportunity of promotion;
The applicants in the present case are Commission officials or
— order the Commission to pay all the costs. temporary staff seconded to the Food and Veterinary Office in
Dublin. They have brought their action as a result of the
application to them, with effect from 16 May 1999, of
Pleas in law and main arguments the weightings referred to in Article 6(2) of Regulation
No 2700/1999 (1).
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
In the applicants’ view, the Commission has applied a weight-
Case T-376/00 Morello v Commission.
ing which does not guarantee officials of the European
Communities who are posted to Dublin a standard of living
and purchasing power equivalent to that of officials working
in Brussels.

In support of their application, the applicants plead:
Action brought on 27 December 2000 by Agnès Ajour — infringement of Articles 64 and 65a of the Staff Regu-
and others against the Commission of the European lations of officials of the European Communities and of
Communities Annex XI to those Regulations, and breach of the
principles of good management and sound adminis-
(Case T-384/00) tration;
— breach of the principles of equal treatment, reasonable
(2001/C 45/52) career prospects for all European officials and freedom of
movement for workers.
(Language of the case: French)
(1) Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 2700/1999 of
17 December 1999 adjusting with effect from 1 July 1999 the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi- remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities and the weightings applied thereto (OJ
European Communities on 27 December 2000 by Agnès L 327 of 21.12.1999, p. 1).