Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Wolf-Dieter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg against the European Parliament and the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-82/02)

    Language of the case: German

An action against the European Parliament and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 March 2002 by Wolf-Dieter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg, of Wittibreut (Germany), represented by H.-H. Heyland, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(by way of modification to the European Parliament's decision of 28 May 2001, order the appointing authority to apply to the applicant's emoluments as a former servant of the Communities, with effect from December 2000, the weighting for the Federal Republic of Germany, to pay over the amounts not paid since then and to make corresponding payments in future for as long as the applicant maintains his residence in Germany.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant, a former member of the temporary staff of the European Parliament who has been retired since 1998, is contesting the Parliament's decision not to apply any weighting to the applicant's retirement pension since 1 December 2001 in the absence of proof that he actually resides in Germany.

The applicant claims that the conduct of the Parliament is not covered by the legislation promulgated and that it has been prompted by considerations which are not germane to the matter. The Parliament found in 1998 that the applicant had a residence in Germany, and the applicant sent, together with the annual declaration, a confirmation of registration issued by the local authority for his place of residence. He claims to have proved to the administration that he has only one German residence and a corresponding centre of vital interests, and that there is thus no valid reason entitling the administration to demand further proof. The administrative practice of the Parliament is neither lawful nor reasonable; moreover, it does not accord with the duties of mutual cooperation.

____________