Notice for the OJ

 

    Action brought on 3 July 2002 by Lene Beier against Europol

    (Case T-208/02)

    Language of the case: Dutch

An action against Europol was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 3 July 2002 by Lene Beier, residing in The Hague (Netherlands), represented by Maria Franciscus Baltussen and Pauline de Casparis, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1)annul the tacit rejection by Europol of the applicant's complaint against the decision of 23 November 2001, and at the same time annul the contested decision of 23 November 2001;

(2)order Europol, primarily, to award the applicant two additional salary increments, effective from 1 July 2001; alternatively, order Europol to award the applicant one additional salary increment, effective from 1 July 2001;

(3)order Europol to pay to the applicant, within 48 hours after delivery of the judgment to be given in this case, what is due to her thereunder, together with interest at the statutory rate prescribed by Netherlands law;

(4)order Europol to pay to the applicant, within 48 hours after delivery of the judgment to be given in this case, the sum of 1 000 euros by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered by her;

(5)order Europol to indemnify the applicant in respect of the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant is employed at Europol. The contested decision adopted by the defendant did not award the applicant a salary increase to which she considers herself to be entitled.

The applicant claims that the decision in question infringes Article 29 of the Europol Staff Regulations. According to the applicant, the Management Board has failed to lay down the necessary rules for the award of salary increases in accordance with that article. The applicant further pleads that the Director exceeded his discretionary powers, inasmuch as the decision-making procedure does not satisfy the requirements of regard for the welfare and interests of staff and of impartiality. Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement of the principles of equal treatment and of the protection of legitimate expectations.

____________