Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 29 March 2005 by Franco Campoli against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-135/05)

(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 29 March 2005 by Franco Campoli, residing in London, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues and Alice Jaume, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

-    annul the decision of the appointing authority of 13 December 2004 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, taken together with, first, the decision of the appointing authority challenged in that complaint, which amended on 1 May 2004 the weighting, household allowance and standard educational allowance applicable to the applicant's pension, and also, second, the applicant's payslips in that they apply that decision from May 2004;

-    order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant seeks, in substance, the application of the weighting applicable to his pension before 1 May 2004, with retroactive effect to 1 May 2004.

In that regard, the applicant observes that, with the aim of covering the transition between the old and new weighting systems following the amendment of the system of Staff Regulations governing the European civil service, Article 20(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations provides for a transitional period of five years, from 1 May 2004 to 1 May 2009, during which the weighting is to be gradually reduced.

In support of his application, the applicant invokes, fundamentally, an objection of illegality, on the basis of Article 241 of the Treaty, on the ground that the application of Article 20 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful in this case.

He claims, in that regard:

-    breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, owing to the assurances which in his submission were given by the administration to the effect that the new Staff Regulations would have no negative impact on his situation,

-    failure to respect the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, owing to the differentiation established according to the place of residence of officials in service and in receipt of a pension,

-    failure to respect his acquired rights, owing to the amendment of his fundamental conditions of employment, considered as at the date of his retirement,

-    breach of the principle of sound administration.

____________