Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 22 November 2001 by Johannes Priesemann against the European Central Bank

    (Case T-286/01)

    (Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Central Bank was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 November 2001 by Johannes Priesemann, residing in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, represented by Norbert Pflüger, Rechtsanwalt.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

--set aside the decision of the European Central Bank to refuse the education allowance for the benefit of his three children, and, if necessary, set aside the decisions of the defendant in the preliminary proceedings;

--order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an employee of the European Central Bank, applied for an education allowance to send his three children to an international school. The defendant refused the application on the ground that the applicant did not fulfil the conditions for the allowance, not being already entitled to the expatriation allowance.

In support of his claim, the applicant argues that the contested decision infringes the principle of equal treatment and thus also Article 19 of the Conditions of Employment. The applicant maintains that, by comparison with the group of employees entitled to expatriation allowance under Article 17 of the Conditions of Employment, he is being discriminated against, and that that discrimination is not justified.

The applicant argues that the position is not affected by the fact that Article 19 of the Conditions of Employment is only a "temporary solution" pending the establishment of a European School in the Frankfurt am Main area. In this phase also, he maintains, he cannot be treated differently from the employees entitled to expatriation allowance.

The applicant finds it incomprehensible that the education allowance is linked to the existence of a right to expatriation allowance under Article 17 of the Conditions of Employment. He argues that the purpose of the education allowance is to enable all-day schooling to take place, and that it is designed not to benefit the employee but to support the dependent child by making a contribution to its maintenance costs.

____________