# C_2005229EN.01002502.xml

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/25

---

Action brought on 4 July 2005 by José Fernandez Tunon against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-253/05)

(2005/C 229/56)

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 4 July 2005 by José Fernandez Tunon, resident in Beersel (Belgium), represented Lucas Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 (notified on 22 March 2005 and received on 24 March 2005) by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 23 November 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract signed on 23 August 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 (notified on 22 March 2005 and received on 24 March 2005) by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 23 November 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract signed on 23 August 2004;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract signed on 23 August 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract signed on 23 August 2004;

| — | order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, formerly of the auxiliary staff (Category D, Group VIII, Grade 4) who, following his appointment as a member of the contract staff, had his remuneration reduced whilst his duties remained unchanged, challenges the decision of the administrative authority fixing his grade and remuneration as a member of the contract staff, in Function Group I, grade 1, step 1.

The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in support of his application:

| — | infringement of Articles 3a(1)(a) and Article 80(2) and (3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (CEOS) and a manifest error of assessment in that the applicant, at the time of his appointment as a member of the contract staff, was graded in a function group which is not commensurate with the description of his qualifications or the actual tasks to which he is assigned; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Articles 3a(1)(a) and Article 80(2) and (3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (CEOS) and a manifest error of assessment in that the applicant, at the time of his appointment as a member of the contract staff, was graded in a function group which is not commensurate with the description of his qualifications or the actual tasks to which he is assigned;

| — | infringement of Article 80(3) of the CEOS in the procedure followed to select posts likely to be filled by contract staff and to define the function groups to which those posts would be assigned, in that that work was carried out by a task force, the composition and method of operation of which have not been disclosed and cannot be verified, whereas the Staff Regulations require that the Staff Regulations Committee be consulted; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 80(3) of the CEOS in the procedure followed to select posts likely to be filled by contract staff and to define the function groups to which those posts would be assigned, in that that work was carried out by a task force, the composition and method of operation of which have not been disclosed and cannot be verified, whereas the Staff Regulations require that the Staff Regulations Committee be consulted;

| — | infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, in that, because of the contested decision, the applicant has been required to perform the same functions as those to which he been assigned earlier, for much lower remuneration and in a context of total uncertainty, whereas identical functions are performed within the Commission by Community officials enjoying the benefits of the Staff Regulations, a high degree of security of employment and considerably higher remuneration. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, in that, because of the contested decision, the applicant has been required to perform the same functions as those to which he been assigned earlier, for much lower remuneration and in a context of total uncertainty, whereas identical functions are performed within the Commission by Community officials enjoying the benefits of the Staff Regulations, a high degree of security of employment and considerably higher remuneration.

---