Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 11 June 2002 by Georgios Gouvras against Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-180/02)

    (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 11 June 2002 by Georgios Gouvras, residing in Bereldange (Luxembourg), represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Etienne Marchal and Albert Coolen, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(annul the decision of 14 August 2001 of the Staff Administration and Management Directorate Luxembourg and Ispra of DG Admin:

    .fixing, with effect from 1 November 2000, the place of employment as Athens, retrospectively removing his right to the expatriation allowance, to the annual travel expenses and applying to his salary the weighting applicable to Greece;

    .to withhold from his remuneration, pursuant to that decision, any amount in general;

(order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, whose place of employment was Luxembourg, was seconded in the interests of the service to the Greek Ministry of Health. The contested decision fixes, with retrospective effect as from 1 November 2000, his place of employment as Athens, with all the implications of that decision. Furthermore, the Commission decided to withhold from his salary, pursuant to the contested decision, any amount in general.

In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement of the first indent of Article 37(a) and Article 38 of the Staff Regulations in that the contested decision changes the place of employment of the applicant during the period in which he was on secondment in the interests of the service. The applicant further alleges infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and breach of the principle prohibiting arbitrary decisions, the principle that legitimate expectations are to be protected and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials inasmuch as the applicant was unaware of the irregular nature of the payments received. Finally, the applicant alleges infringement of Articles 5 and 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

____________