Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

C 7/38 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.1.

2004

Action brought on 15 October 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef The applicant claims that the Court should:
against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the decision of the Deputy Secretary General of the
(Case T-352/03) Council of 29 November 2002 not to include her name
on the list of officials promoted to Grade C 2 in the 2002
(2004/C 7/69) promotions procedure;

(Language of the case: French) — order the defendant to pay the costs.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-


ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 October 2003 by Giorgio Pleas in law and main arguments
Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented
by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers.
In support of her application, the applicant relies on a plea of
breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in that the
The applicant claims that the Court should:
defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by
— award damages of 5 000 euros to the applicant as considering comparative merits without taking account of the
compensation for the non-material damage suffered by differences in marking between the different departments of
him as a result of the delay in drawing up the final staff the institution.
report (delay in placing a document in his personal file)
in respect of the period 1999-2001;

— make an order as to costs, expenses and fees and order


the Commission of the European Communities to pay
them.

Pleas in law and main arguments Action brought on 20 October 2003 by Gemma Reggi-
menti against the European Parliament
In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
of the general instructions implementing Article 43 of the (Case T-354/03)
Staff Regulations, breach of the principle of sound adminis-
tration and failure to fulfil the duty to have regard to the
welfare of officials. The applicant also claims to have suffered (2004/C 7/71)
non-material damage as a result and that, moreover, he was
the victim of harassment aimed at curtailing his freedom of
association. (Language of the case: French)

An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of


the European Communities on 20 October 2003 against the
Action brought on 14 October 2003 by Inge-Lise Nielsen European Parliament by Gemma Reggimenti, residing in
against the Council of the European Union Woluwé-Saint-Lambert (Belgium), represented by Claudine
Junion, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
(Case T-353/03)

(2004/C 7/70) The applicant claims that Court of First Instance should:

(Language of the case: French)


— annul the decision of the European Parliament of 17 July
2003 in so far as it denies the applicant payment of travel
expenses as from 6 August 1999;
An action against Council of the European Union was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
— order the European Parliament to pay the applicant travel
on 14 October 2003 by Inge-Lise Nielsen, residing in Villers-
expenses for her daughter as from 6 August 1999;
la-Ville (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg. — order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
10.1.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/39

Pleas in law and main arguments Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the European Parliament, obtained Following the entry into force on 1 January 2001 of the new
a court decision on 6 August 1999 to the effect that her financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the
daughter should reside mainly with her. The applicant and her European Communities (1), the Parliament commenced a pro-
husband, also an official, were divorced by decree of 31 Octo- cedure for amendment of the rules concerning budgetary
ber 2001, which became final on 12 January 2002. The heading 3701, the credits of which are intended to cover
Parliament decided to pay the applicant only half the travel administrative and operational expenses of the political groups
expenses for her daughter, and to do so as from 2002, the and of the secretariat for non-attached Members. On 2 July
year in which the divorce took place. 2003 the Bureau of the Parliament decided to adopt the revised
version of the latter rules, subject to amendment of the
Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and other changes which
might prove necessary following further consultations.
By this application the applicant contests that decision, on the
basis of Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. The
applicant submits that, in view of the decision granting her
primary custody of her daughter, the latter should be regarded In support of their application for annulment of the decision
as being her dependent child and therefore that the travel adopting the new rules, the applicant invoke first the alleged
expenses should be paid to her at the full rate. failure to comply with formal requirements laid down for the
adoption of such rules. They contend that the new rules were
notified to them in the form of a proposal which did not
purport to be the final version of an official document. They
also submit that the contested measure was adopted without
the budgetary control committee, from which an opinion had
been sought, having issued its report and that therefore an
essential procedural requirement had been disregarded. In
addition to matters of form, the applicants also claim that
the new rules infringe the principle of equal treatment by
Action brought on 23 October 2003 by Bruno Gollnisch prohibiting new categories of expenses or employment of staff
and Others against the European Parliament under budgetary heading 3701 only as far as non-attached
Members are concerned.

(Case T-357/03)
(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June
2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget
(2004/C 7/72) of the European Communities (OJ L 248 of 16.9.2002, p. 1).

(Language of the case: French)

An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of


the European Communities on 23 October 2003 against the Action brought on 17 October 2003 by Siegfried Krahl
European Parliament by Bruno Gollnisch, of Limonest (France), against the Commission of the European Communities
Marie-France Stirbois, of Villeneuve-Loubey (France), Carl
Lang, of Boulogne-Billancourt (France), Jean-Claude Martinez,
of Montpellier (France), Philip Claeys, of Overijse (Belgium) (Case T-358/03)
and Koen Dillon, of Antwerp (Belgium), represented by
Wallerand de Saint Just, lawyer.
(2004/C 7/73)

The applicants claim that Court of First Instance should: (Language of the case: French)

— annul the decision of the Bureau of the European


Parliament of 2 July 2003 and more particularly the
provisions thereof adopting a proposal by Mr Poettering An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
concerning the report of Mr Van Hulten, which amends ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the rules on the use of budgetary heading 3701;
European Communities on 17 October 2003 by Siegfried
Krahl, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by Sébastien
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs and Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal,
lawyer’s fees amounting to EUR 10 000. lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.