You are on page 1of 1


2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 124/27

In its request, the Cayman Islands Government indicated that The applicant claims that the Court should:
it entertained significant reservations about the compatibility
of certain core provisions of the draft Directive with the
fundamental principles of non-discrimination, legitimate — annul the decision of the authority authorised to conclude
expectations and proportionality in EC Law and its consistency contracts of employment of 20 June 2002 refusing to
with the aims, purpose and wording of the Overseas Associ- grant the applicant the expatriation allowance;
ation Decision.
— annul the decision explicitly rejecting her complaint of
13 December 2002;
In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits:
— order the defendant to pay the expatriation allowance to
— That by deciding not to respond to an urgent request for the applicant as from 1 April 2002, deducting, in respect
a PWP until after the proposed directive has been agreed of the past, whatever has been granted to her by way of
by ECOFIN, the Commission has deliberately ensured foreign residence allowance on the date of the judgment
that an effective and useful PWP cannot take place, to be delivered, together with default interest at the rate
rendering the procedure under Article 7 of the above of 8 % per annum, with effect from the mean date
mentioned Council Decision devoid of purpose, and has between 1 April 2002 and the actual date of payment;
placed ECOFIN and the Council in a position where these
bodies are likely to agree respectively and formally to
adopt the proposed directive in violation of the applicant’s — order the defendant to pay the costs.
right to be heard.

— That the Commission is duty bound to consider requests

for PWPs submitted to it by OCTs under Article 7 of the
Overseas Association Decision. In deciding, after three Pleas in law and main arguments
month’s delay, not to respond to the request in question,
and in failing to give adequate reasons for that decision,
the Commission has both misused its decision-making
powers under the Overseas Association Decision and The applicant, a member of the temporary staff who has since
failed to respect the requirements of Article 253 EC. become a probationary official at the Commission, submits
that the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employ-
ment wrongly refused to grant her the expatriation allowance
on the ground that the European Youth Forum, for which the
( 1) OJ 2001 L 314, p. 1.
applicant worked from April 1995 to January 2000, did not
satisfy two of the five conditions laid down by the internal
directive adopted in October 1994 laying down five criteria to
be satisfied by organisations in order to be regarded as
‘international organisations’ for the purposes of Article 4 of
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

In support of her action, the applicant argues that, by

Action brought on 13 March 2002 by María Luisa Atienza
refusing to grant her the expatriation allowance, the authority
Morales against the Commission of the European Com-
authorised to conclude contracts of employment manifestly
misapplied and misinterpreted Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to
the Staff Regulations, basing its decision on reasons which
were incorrect both in fact and in law and therefore placing
(Case T-99/03)
the applicant in an administrative situation which was discrimi-
natory in relation to that of other officials who were in the
same position but who received that allowance.
(2003/C 124/47)

(Language of the case: French) In addition, she relies on infringement of Article 69 of the
Staff Regulations and failure to have proper regard to general
principles of law, such as those requiring the appointing
authority to observe equal treatment as between officials and
to base any decision which it takes only on legally valid
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 March 2003 by María Luisa
Atienza Morales, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric
Boigelot, lawyer.