Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 9 August 2005 - Rounis v Commission

(Case T-311/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties:

Applicant(s): George Rounis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

annul the Commission's decision refusing the transfer of part of the applicant's salary intended to pay the university fees for his daughter for the academic year 2003-2004;

award compensation for material and non-material damage on account of the various serious errors committed at different levels, assessed ex aequo et bono EUR 13 582.88 together with interest at 5.25% until full payment, subject to any increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings;

in any event order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who also brought Case T-17/01¹, contests, in particular, the Appointing Authority's refusal to transfer to the United Kingdom the 35% of his net monthly salary intended to pay the fees for his daughter's university studies.

He states, in that regard, that he provided evidence of the actual expenses in the United Kingdom and that the right to make such a transfer has been conferred on him since the judgment of 16 May 2002, supplemented by the judgment of 30 September 2002, delivered in the case cited above.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges an infringement of Articles 62 and 67 of the Staff Regulations, together with Article 17 of Annexes VII and XIII thereof, also in the version resulting from the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of 1 May 2004. He also alleges that general principles of law have been disregarded, such as the principles of sound administration and management, the principle of the protection of legitimate hopes and expectations, the duty to have regard for the welfare of employees and the principles which require the Appointing Authority to adopt a decision solely on the basis of grounds which are relevant and which are not vitiated by manifest errors of assessment.

____________

¹ - Judgments of 16 May 2002 (ECR-SC IA-63; II-301) and 30 September 2003 (ECR-SC IA-221; II-1079).