Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 25 July 2005 by Mohammad Reza Fardoom and Michael Ashbrook against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-291/05)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 July 2005 by Mohammed Reza Fardoom, resident in Roodt-sur-Syre (Luxembourg), and Michael Ashbrook, resident in Strassen (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

-    set aside the decisions of the Head of Unit for 'Social Dialogue', adopted on 4 November 2004 and refusing the applicants travel orders, applied for on 9 September 2004, in order to take part in the meeting of 13 September 2004 with a member of the Commission;

-    order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants had been invited, as representatives of a trade union organisation, to a meeting held on 13 September 2004 with a member of the Commission. In order to take part in that meeting, the applicants had, beforehand, applied for travel orders. Those applications were not approved by their immediate superior until 41 days later. The authorising officer rejected those applications by reason of that delay.

The applicants claim that the latter decision should be annulled. In support of their action, they contend that there has been an infringement of Article 24a of the Staff Regulations, of the freedom to belong to a trade union, of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, and that the process was arbitrary. In that context, the applicants submit that they lodged their requests within the appropriate time-limit and that they should not be held responsible for the fact that they were approved too late. The applicants also contend that the missions were requested without any expenses and that, accordingly, it was not necessary subsequently to involve the budget of the institution.

The applicants also allege that there has been an infringement of the principle that reasons must be given and of the duty of care owed by the Commission.

____________