Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 27 May 2003 by Joëlle Hivonnet against Council of the European Union

    (Case T-188/03)

    (Language of the case: French)

An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 May 2003 by Joëlle Hivonnet, domiciled in New York (United States), represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(annul the decision of the appointing authority of 23 July 2002 rejecting the applicant's request for the grant of an education allowance for her daughter Eponine for the school years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, and only granting an education allowance for the school year 2001-2002 on an exceptional basis on the ground of educational continuity;

(annul the decision of the appointing authority of 17 February 2003, notified on 24 February 2003, dismissing the applicant's complaint of 9 October 2002;

(restore all the applicant's pecuniary rights;

(order the defendant to pay default interest on sums owed to the applicant as education allowance for the school years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, that interest to run for the first two school years from 17 June 2002 until the sums are paid in full; for the school year 2001-2002 interest to run from 17 June 2002 to 13 August 2002 for the first and second terms and from 8 March 2002 to 7 May 2002 for the third term. The rate of default interest to apply must be calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for capital refinancing operations in force during the period concerned, increased by two percentage points;

(order the defendant to pay one euro as compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

(order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant's daughter was born in 1996 and began to attend the French Lycée in Brussels in September 1999.

In support of her application the applicant relies, first, on breach of Article 3 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, breach of Article 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations and the Council Decision of 19 December 1998 laying down general implementing provisions in respect of Annex X to the Staff Regulations. She also complains that the Council took a decision on grounds that are wrong in fact and law. The applicant claims that despite the clear terms of the national rules applicable to schooling and the replies given by the French Government on those rules, the Council considered that her daughter's schooling was not primary education.

The applicant further alleges that the principle of non-discrimination was infringed in that children registered at a French educational establishment are not treated in the same way as children registered in a Luxembourg, British or Dutch educational establishment.

Lastly the applicant alleges that the requirement to state reasons and the fundamental right to a hearing have been infringed. The applicant states that the Council did not take account of the opinion of the French authorities and did not explain why they did not do so.

____________