Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 21 March 2005 by Carlos Andrés and Others against the European Central Bank

(Case T-131/05)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Central Bank was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 March 2005 by Carlos Andrés, residing in Frankfurt am Main, and eight others, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul the applicants' salary statements for July 2004;

order the defendant to pay damages to compensate for the harm suffered by the applicants, consisting of the award of EUR 5 000 per applicant on account of a loss of purchasing power since 1 July 2001, of arrears of pay corresponding to an increase in the applicants' salary of 1.86% for the period from 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002, 0.92% for the period from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003 and 2.09% for the period from 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004, and of the application of interest to the amount of the applicants' arrears of salary from their respective due date until the date of actual payment. That rate of interest should be calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for the main refinancing operations, applicable during the period concerned, plus two points.

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject-matter of this case is the salary increase contained in the applicants' salary statements for July 2004, which they claim was established in disregard of the obligation to consult the staff of the European Central Bank (ECB), and of the methods of calculation relating to general salary adjustments, as organised by an agreement concluded between the management and the staff ('the Memorandum of Understanding'). It is also disputed that the increase in question, applied following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2003 in Case T-63/02 Cerafogli and Poloni v ECB [2003] ECR-SC I-A-291 and II-1405, did not have retroactive effects for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003.

In support of their claims, the applicants plead:

-    infringement both of Article 45 and 46 of the Conditions of Employment and of the Memorandum of Understanding, and breach of the principle of good administration;

-    breach of the duty to state reasons, as well as, in this instance, a manifest error of assessment. It is argued in this regard that the tables drawn up by the Bank to justify the proposed percentage salary increase in question are the result of an incorrect application of the methods of calculation;

-    breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

____________