# C_2005217EN.01005001.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/50

---

Action brought on 30 June 2005 by Tineke Duyster against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-249/05)

(2005/C 217/105)

Language of the case: Dutch

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 2005 by Tineke Duyster, residing in Oetrange (Luxembourg), represented by W. H. A. M. van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 6 April 2005; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 6 April 2005;

| 2. | annul the decision on the award of parental leave of 1 November 2004 to 30 April 2005 inclusive and/or the salary slip for November 2004, and/or the Commission's decision of 30 November 2004 not to take account of the request for deferment or cancellation of the parental leave; |
| --- | --- |

2.

annul the decision on the award of parental leave of 1 November 2004 to 30 April 2005 inclusive and/or the salary slip for November 2004, and/or the Commission's decision of 30 November 2004 not to take account of the request for deferment or cancellation of the parental leave;

| 3. | find that from 1 November 2004 until 30 April 2005 inclusive Mrs Duyster has all substantive rights connected with the active service of an official and therefore, inter alia, payment according to her grade and step must be made to her with retroactive effect; |
| --- | --- |

3.

find that from 1 November 2004 until 30 April 2005 inclusive Mrs Duyster has all substantive rights connected with the active service of an official and therefore, inter alia, payment according to her grade and step must be made to her with retroactive effect;

| 4. | find that this payment must be made with interest for late payment; |
| --- | --- |

4.

find that this payment must be made with interest for late payment;

| 5. | find that parental leave with regard to her son may still be requested (even if, after the date when the judgment of the Court becomes effective, he is older than 12 years old or almost older than 12 years old) since the failure to approve the request submitted is the Commission's fault; alternatively, that, since the inability to take up parental leave in regard to her son is the fault of the Commission compensation must be paid for this corresponding to the loss of benefits for parental leave, insurance, seniority, the accrual of pension; appraisal reports and promotion opportunities, which can be estimated at a total of EUR 27 000; or, in the further alternative, that damages of EUR 800 per month over the period not taken up in respect of parental leave for her son shall be paid for loss of parental benefit, EUR 100 for loss of insurance, EUR 1 200 for loss of pension rights; |
| --- | --- |

5.

find that parental leave with regard to her son may still be requested (even if, after the date when the judgment of the Court becomes effective, he is older than 12 years old or almost older than 12 years old) since the failure to approve the request submitted is the Commission's fault; alternatively, that, since the inability to take up parental leave in regard to her son is the fault of the Commission compensation must be paid for this corresponding to the loss of benefits for parental leave, insurance, seniority, the accrual of pension; appraisal reports and promotion opportunities, which can be estimated at a total of EUR 27 000; or, in the further alternative, that damages of EUR 800 per month over the period not taken up in respect of parental leave for her son shall be paid for loss of parental benefit, EUR 100 for loss of insurance, EUR 1 200 for loss of pension rights;

| 6. | find that damages of EUR 2 500 must be paid to her as compensation for the uncertainty caused to Mrs Duyster as to her status as an official and the non-material detriment resulting from that uncertainty; |
| --- | --- |

6.

find that damages of EUR 2 500 must be paid to her as compensation for the uncertainty caused to Mrs Duyster as to her status as an official and the non-material detriment resulting from that uncertainty;

| 7. | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

7.

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submitted an application for parental leave for the period from 8 November 2004 until 7 May 2005. In response, the Commission granted the applicant parental leave from 1 November 2004 until 30 April 2005.

The applicant states that no formal refusal was received in response to her request for parental leave for the period from 8 November 2004 until 7 May 2005 and she concludes that her request was implicitly rejected. She also states that, as she did not challenge that rejection and did not submit any other application, she was in active service from 1 November 2004 until 30 April 2005 inclusive and is thus entitled to all benefits associated therewith.

In support of her application the applicant also submits that the decision awarding parental leave from 1 November 2004 until 30 April 2005 was adopted contrary to the principle of equality, the principle of legal certainty, Article 42a of the Staff Regulations and Articles 25, 26, 35, 36 and 62 of the Staff Regulations.

---