Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Arcangelo Milella and Another against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-289/05)

(2005/C 229/76)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 July 2005 by Arcangelo Milella, resident in Niederanven (Luxembourg), and Delfina Campanella, resident in Luxembourg, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The dispute concerns the appointment of representatives of the Local Staff Committee of the Commission in Luxembourg (LCSL) to the Central Staff Committee of the Commission (CSC) following the elections of 24 November 2004. By letter of 18 April 2005, the Director-General of the DG ADMIN of the Commission pointed out to the chairpersons of the LCSL and CSC that he considered the ‘d'Hondt rule’, which is a mathematical method chosen to divide the seats within the CSC amongst the lists put forward for the elections, to be in accordance with the proportionality principle. However, by that same letter, the Director annulled, on separate grounds, the appointments of the representatives to the CSC. Following that letter, the LCSL, on 26 April 2005, appointed new representatives, in accordance with the d'Hondt method.

By letter of 11 May 2005, the Director-General of the DG ADMIN confirmed that he considered those appointments to be in order.

The applicants, officials of the European Commission posted in Luxembourg, contend that those decisions should be annulled. They claim that there has been an infringement of the final paragraph of Article 14 of the Regulations of 27 April 1988 on the composition and functioning of the Staff Committee adopted by the Commission, and of the rule that the allocation of seats within the CSC should be in proportion to the allocation of seats on the LCSL and of the principle that the CSC be representative. The applicants allege that a different method of seat allocation, namely the largest remainder method, should have been adopted and would have resulted in a more representative allocation.

The applicants also contend that the LCSL misused its powers. They submit that the majority of the LCSL sought artificially to increase its representation to the detriment of list No 1, and the Appointing Authority erred in law and committed a manifest error of assessment in approving the use of the d'Hondt method.

The applicants also claim that the Appointing Authority infringed the principle of equal treatment in so far as it departed from its previous practice, under which it considered the largest remainder method to be the only method capable of guaranteeing proportionality.

Finally, the applicants allege that the Appointing Authority infringed the third paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations and Article 16(1) and (2) of the Regulations of the LCSL on the ground that the Appointing Authority forced the LCSL to choose the d'Hondt method or, at least, allowed it to encroach upon the competence of the General Staff Assembly, which is the only body competent to decide upon the applicable method.