# C_2006294EN.01006603.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/66

---

Action brought on 2 October 2006 — Loy v European Parliament

(Case F-117/06)

(2006/C 294/132)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Maddalena Loy (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Fratini, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the European Parliament of 30 January 2006, which informed the applicant of the decision to reassign her from the Parliament's Italian Information Office, based in Rome, to the Information Directorate-General, based in Brussels, and of the extension of her temporary contract until 16 July 2006, instead of until 31 December 2009, as previously decided by the Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Parliament of 30 January 2006, which informed the applicant of the decision to reassign her from the Parliament's Italian Information Office, based in Rome, to the Information Directorate-General, based in Brussels, and of the extension of her temporary contract until 16 July 2006, instead of until 31 December 2009, as previously decided by the Parliament;

| — | order the defendant to pay, increased by default interest, all of the monthly salaries connected to the applicant's position of press attaché in Rome, from the date on which the temporary contract should have been renewed, that is, from 1 January 2006, until 31 December 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay, increased by default interest, all of the monthly salaries connected to the applicant's position of press attaché in Rome, from the date on which the temporary contract should have been renewed, that is, from 1 January 2006, until 31 December 2009;

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation for material damage, estimated at EUR 240 414,42, and EUR 500 000 for non-material damage or such higher or lower amount as the Court may determine; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation for material damage, estimated at EUR 240 414,42, and EUR 500 000 for non-material damage or such higher or lower amount as the Court may determine;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant invokes seven pleas in support of her action:

| — | the first concerns infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, in that the administration gave the applicant to believe, beyond any reasonable doubt, that her position as press attaché with the Parliament's Rome Office would be confirmed and that her contract would be extended until 31 December 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

the first concerns infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, in that the administration gave the applicant to believe, beyond any reasonable doubt, that her position as press attaché with the Parliament's Rome Office would be confirmed and that her contract would be extended until 31 December 2009;

| — | the second concerns infringement of essential procedural requirements by reason of an insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons. In particular, the arguments alleging insufficiency of the applicant's professional capacities are contradicted by the reports concerning her drawn up pursuant to Article 43 of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

the second concerns infringement of essential procedural requirements by reason of an insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons. In particular, the arguments alleging insufficiency of the applicant's professional capacities are contradicted by the reports concerning her drawn up pursuant to Article 43 of the Staff Regulations;

| — | the third concerns misuse of powers due to manifest error of assessment of fundamental circumstances and inconsistency. The reassignment decision is not based on professional incompetence or on the interests of the service but on the desire for retaliation on the part of the applicant's hierarchical superior; |
| --- | --- |

—

the third concerns misuse of powers due to manifest error of assessment of fundamental circumstances and inconsistency. The reassignment decision is not based on professional incompetence or on the interests of the service but on the desire for retaliation on the part of the applicant's hierarchical superior;

| — | the fourth is based on breach of the duty of care in that, according to the applicant, the contested decision was adopted without the necessary care and without taking account of the employee's interests; |
| --- | --- |

—

the fourth is based on breach of the duty of care in that, according to the applicant, the contested decision was adopted without the necessary care and without taking account of the employee's interests;

| — | the fifth concerns infringement of the principles of proportionality and of sound administration. First, the applicant received no warning of the possibility of transfer at such short notice. Second, the facts underlying the transfer were not properly ascertained and the statutory provisions relating to the behaviour for which the applicant is criticised were not complied with; |
| --- | --- |

—

the fifth concerns infringement of the principles of proportionality and of sound administration. First, the applicant received no warning of the possibility of transfer at such short notice. Second, the facts underlying the transfer were not properly ascertained and the statutory provisions relating to the behaviour for which the applicant is criticised were not complied with;

| — | the sixth concerns infringement of the right of defence, in particular the fact that the defendant, although having had the opportunity to hear the applicant, did not follow up her declarations in any way, and did not give the parties any opportunity to set out their views on the matter; |
| --- | --- |

—

the sixth concerns infringement of the right of defence, in particular the fact that the defendant, although having had the opportunity to hear the applicant, did not follow up her declarations in any way, and did not give the parties any opportunity to set out their views on the matter;

| — | the seventh concerns infringement of the duty to provide assistance set out in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, which requires the administration to protect officials even where the person responsible for the matters regulated by the provision in question is another official. Although the applicant advanced prima facie evidence capable of supporting her allegations, the administration took no adequate measures. |
| --- | --- |

—

the seventh concerns infringement of the duty to provide assistance set out in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, which requires the administration to protect officials even where the person responsible for the matters regulated by the provision in question is another official. Although the applicant advanced prima facie evidence capable of supporting her allegations, the administration took no adequate measures.

---