# C_2006108EN.01003102.xml

| 6.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/31

---

Action brought on 2 March 2006 — Da Silva v Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-21/06)

(2006/C 108/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): João Da Silva (Brussels) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Applicant(s):

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | a declaration that the action is admissible and well founded, including the plea of illegality that it contains; |
| --- | --- |

—

a declaration that the action is admissible and well founded, including the plea of illegality that it contains;

| — | annulment of the applicant's classification in Grade A*14, step 2, contained in the decision of 18 May 2005 appointing the applicant as a director; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the applicant's classification in Grade A*14, step 2, contained in the decision of 18 May 2005 appointing the applicant as a director;

| — | restoration of the applicant to the grade and step in which he would in the ordinary course of events have been placed (or the equivalent according to the classification introduced by the new Staff Regulations), according to the provisions of the notice of vacancy published on 7 November 2003, pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations (notice for a director's post at Grade A2); |
| --- | --- |

—

restoration of the applicant to the grade and step in which he would in the ordinary course of events have been placed (or the equivalent according to the classification introduced by the new Staff Regulations), according to the provisions of the notice of vacancy published on 7 November 2003, pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations (notice for a director's post at Grade A2);

| — | complete reinstatement of the applicant's career with effect retrospective to the date of his being classified in the grade and step thus corrected, including the payment of default interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

complete reinstatement of the applicant's career with effect retrospective to the date of his being classified in the grade and step thus corrected, including the payment of default interest;

| — | an order that the Commission of the European Communities should pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Commission of the European Communities should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 7 November 2003 the Commission published a notice of vacancy for a director's post at Grade A2, pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations. The applicant, a head of unit in Grade 3, step 7, occupying that post as a locum tenens, decided to apply for it.

By decision of 18 May 2005 he was appointed to the vacant post and classified in Grade A*14, step 2, the date on which that was to take effect being fixed at 16 September 2004.

In his action the applicant argues that this classification is lower than Grade 2, now A*15, which appeared in the notice of vacancy. What is more, the classification is also lower than that enjoyed by the applicant before his appointment to the director's post, while he was head of unit. That result is not consistent with the fact that a director's post entails higher duties and responsibilities.

The applicant considers that his classification is contrary to Articles 2(1) and 5 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations. More than one legal principle has also been infringed: the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of correspondence of grade to post, set out in Article 7(1) as an essential principle guaranteeing equal treatment of officials, the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations, and the principles of good administration and the duty to have regard to the interests of officials. In addition, there is an infringement of the right to reasonable career prospects and of the interests of the service.

In the alternative, the applicant claims that Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful.

---