# C_2007117EN.01003801.xml

| 26.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/38

---

Action brought on 28 March 2007 — Noworyta v Parliament

(Case F-30/07)

(2007/C 117/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Lidia Noworyta (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 28 April 2006 rejecting the proposal of the applicant's hierarchical superior of 20 October 2005 to grant her the fixed allowance in respect of overtime worked in special conditions within the meaning of Article 3 of Annex VI to the Staff Regulations or any other allowance, either under Article 56a of 56b of the Staff Regulations |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 28 April 2006 rejecting the proposal of the applicant's hierarchical superior of 20 October 2005 to grant her the fixed allowance in respect of overtime worked in special conditions within the meaning of Article 3 of Annex VI to the Staff Regulations or any other allowance, either under Article 56a of 56b of the Staff Regulations

| — | an order that the defendant pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the defendant pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action, the applicant pleads first, the infringement of the general principle according to which any worker must have fair working conditions, in particular in terms of working time and compensation or allowances for overtime worked or on account of special arrangements in the organisation of his or her working hours.

More specifically, she submits that, unlike Articles 56a and 56b of the Staff Regulations, Article 3 of Annex VI to the Staff Regulations does not make the granting of a fixed allowance in respect of overtime worked in special conditions subject to the condition that that overtime must be worked on a regular basis. In the applicant's view, the Appointing Authority erred in law by inserting that condition into the internal rules adopted on compensation for overtime.

The Appointing Authority also erred in law by stating that officials recruited as of 1 May 2004 are not entitled to such an allowance, even though that possibility was expressly referred to in Article 1 of the internal rules.

In addition, the applicant claims that the decision to deny her any compensation or allowance in respect of her special conditions of work infringes Article 56a and 56b of the Staff Regulations and the principle of equal treatment.

Lastly, in the applicant's opinion, the Parliament's position is inconsistent, since the Director General of the Directorate General for the Presidency stated that nobody on a telephone switchboard works overtime on a regular basis, while the Appointing Authority for its part claimed that a study was underway in order to examine the possibilities of harmonising working conditions in the department at issue precisely because of the atypical hours worked, which are outside of general/normal working hours.

---