Action brought on 28 June 2007 - S v European Parliament

(Case F-64/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: S (represented by: R. Mastroianni and F. Ferraro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

annul Decision No 305747 of the European Parliament of 29 March 2007 rejecting his complaint;

annul the European Parliament's decision of 27 July 2006 reassigning him to Brussels and appointing him adviser to the Director General for Information;

annul all acts, previous, concomitant or consequential, and in any way connected;

order the European Parliament to indemnify the loss sustained as a result of that decision, in the sum of EUR 400 000 or such greater or lesser sum as the Court may think fit;

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action the applicant puts forward seven pleas in law which may be summarised as follows:

1.    the decision to reassign him was unlawful for lack of reasoning explaining why the Parliament had decided to transfer the applicant to its seat in Brussels;

2.    the decision to reassign him, involving the removal of a seriously sick person to a distant place, was contrary to the fundamental right to health enshrined in Articles 3(p) and 152 EC, and in Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Protecting the applicant's health ought to have prevailed over the interests of the service;

3.    the Parliament breached its duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, and the principles of proper administration, impartiality, transparency and legal certainty. As a matter of fact, the institution failed to carry out, before adopting the decision to reassign the applicant, an adequate investigation of the hostile attitudes with which the applicant was confronted or to have the effects of such a decision on his health evaluated from a medical point of view;

4.    the decision to reassign him, which was in essence a penalty, was unreasonable and disproportionate in relation to the matters for which the Parliament holds him responsible, especially as he suffers from a serious disease and is close to the age of retirement;

5.    the Parliament, having failed to pay particular attention to the applicant's situation on account of his health, has contravened the principles of equal treatment and 'neminem laedere' (do harm to no one);

6.    by adopting the decision to reassign him the Parliament used its own powers to punish the applicant and to bring about the early termination of the employment relationship, so committing a misuse of power and an abuse of process, and also infringing Articles 7 and 86 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and of Annex IX thereto;

7.    the applicant was not placed in a position in which he could express his point of view on the decision under discussion to reassign him to Brussels, in breach of his rights of the defence.

____________