Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document C2006/294/105

    Case T-229/06: Action brought on 24 August 2006 — Kretschmer v Parliament

    OJ C 294, 2.12.2006, p. 50–51 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    2.12.2006   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 294/50

    Action brought on 24 August 2006 — Kretschmer v Parliament

    (Case T-229/06)

    (2006/C 294/105)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: Elfriede Kretschmer (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Parliament

    Form of order sought

    The Court is asked to:

    —

    Annul the decision, brought to the applicant's notice on 14 June 2006, not to grant her payment of the daily subsistence allowance in full with effect from 16 October 2003 and determining Overijse (Belgium) as her place of recruitment;

    —

    as a consequence, order the defendant to pay the following sums:

    —

    (i)

    by way of daily subsistence allowance:

    —

    EUR 50 per day in respect of the period from 16 October 2003 to 30 April 2004 in accordance with Article 12(1) of the Rules governing the secondment of national experts to the European Parliament of 2 June 2003;

    —

    EUR 84 per day in respect of the period from 1 May 2004 to 31 March 2005 in accordance with Article 12(1) of the Rules governing the secondment of national experts to the European Parliament of 3 May 2004;

    —

    EUR 84,35 per day with effect from 1 May 2005 in accordance with Article 15(2) of the Rules governing the secondment of national experts to the European Parliament of 7 March 2005;

    —

    (ii)

    EUR 72,39 by way of supplementary monthly allowance in accordance with Article 15(2) of the Rules governing the secondment of national experts to the European Parliament of 7 March 2005;

    —

    order the defendant to pay the applicant default interest on the sums referred to at (i) and (ii) from the respective due dates until the date of actual payment. The interest rate must be the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for principal refinancing operations applicable for the period in question, increased by two points;

    —

    order the defendant to pay the token sum of one euro as compensation for non-material damage caused to the applicant on account of the faults committed as a result of delays in the management of the case;

    —

    order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The applicant is a national expert on secondment to the European Parliament. Her initial contract for the period from 16 October 2003 to 15 October 2004 was renewed for the period from 16 October 2004 to 15 October 2005 and then again for a further two-year period from 16 October 2005 to 15 October 2007. By her application, she seeks annulment of the decision, brought to her attention by e-mail on 14 June 2006, not to grant her payment of the daily subsistence allowance in full with effect from 16 October 2003 and determining Overijse (Belgium) as her place of recruitment.

    In support of her claim, the applicant alleges misinterpretation and misapplication of the 2002, 2004 and 2005 Ruless on national experts on secondment (SNEs) to the Parliament. The applicant maintains that, at the time when she was first recruited, her place of residence was in Germany and not in Belgium, which was considered by the Parliament authorities to be her place of recruitment. She submits that her secondment was approved by agreement between her authority from which she came (the Minister-President of the Land of North-Rhine Westphalia) and the Commission when she was first engaged as a temporary agent for the period from 1 September 2002 to 31 July 2003, which, in her view, constitutes evidence of her place of residence prior to her recruitment and at the times when her contracts were renewed. The applicant also maintains that the fact that she moved to Brussels to take up her duties as SNE and registered as a temporary resident in Brussels in accordance with Belgian law, cannot be regarded as constituting a change in ‘place of residence’, which presupposes fixed, permanent and settled establishment. In support of her position, she relies on the fact that she is subject to fixed-term recruitment for a maximum period of six years and that, at the end of that period she will, in principle, return to Germany to resume her duties as judge in the national courts. She therefore considers that throughout the period of employment as SNE her place of residence has been Germany and not Brussels.

    With regard to the claim for compensation, the applicant considers that the European Parliament exceeded a reasonable period in responding to her requests for clarification and for a review of her situation and, furthermore, that such conduct is inconsistent with the requirements of the European Code of good administrative conduct. The applicant seeks an order that the defendant pay the token sum of one euro as compensation for the non-material damage thus caused. The applicant also seeks default interest on the sums due to her under the 2002, 2004 and 2005 rules on SNEs.

    Top