# C_2006010EN.01002103.xml

| 14.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/21

---

Action brought on 6 October 2005 — Schierhorst v Commission

(Case T-374/05)

(2006/C 10/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Rainer Johannes Schierhorst (Georgetown, Guyana) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Jaume, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting the applicant's complaint, taken together with the decision appointing the applicant adopted by the Appointing Authority on 5 January 2005, in that it fixes his grade by application of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and his step pursuant to the current Article 32 of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting the applicant's complaint, taken together with the decision appointing the applicant adopted by the Appointing Authority on 5 January 2005, in that it fixes his grade by application of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and his step pursuant to the current Article 32 of the Staff Regulations;

| — | indicate to the Appointing Authority the effects of annulling the contested decisions, in particular the regrading of the applicant at grade A*10, step 4, with retrospective effect from 1 February 2005, the date on which the decision of 11 October 2004 appointing the applicant took effect; |
| --- | --- |

—

indicate to the Appointing Authority the effects of annulling the contested decisions, in particular the regrading of the applicant at grade A*10, step 4, with retrospective effect from 1 February 2005, the date on which the decision of 11 October 2004 appointing the applicant took effect;

| — | in the alternative, order the Commission to make good the loss suffered by the applicant because he was not graded at grade A*10, step 4, from 1 February 2005, the date on which the decision of 5 January 2005 appointing the applicant took effect; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, order the Commission to make good the loss suffered by the applicant because he was not graded at grade A*10, step 4, from 1 February 2005, the date on which the decision of 5 January 2005 appointing the applicant took effect;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who was successful in Open Competition COM/A/1/02 for administrators of grade A7/A6 in the agricultural sector, was appointed an official by the contested decision of 5 January 2005. By application of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, he was graded at the new grade A*6, lower than the former grades A7/A6 which correspond to grades A*8/A*10 under the new system.

In support of his claims, the applicant relies on the pleas in law which are identical to those relied on by the applicant in Case T-207/05 (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005, p. 36.

1

---