# C_2007247EN.01004201.xml

| 20.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/42 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 6 July 2007 — Gering v Europol

(Case F-68/07)

(2007/C 247/69)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Radolf Gering (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Form of order sought

| — | annul the complaints decision of 5 April 2007, sent on 10 April 2007, and, so far as is necessary, the contract of 24 April 2007 also, in so far as it concerns classification. |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order Europol:
—
primarily: to pay the applicant, as from 1 August 2003, a salary corresponding to Grade 4.2 or, if the Tribunal considers it necessary, a salary corresponding to Grade 4.1; —
in the alternative: to pay the applicant, as from 1 August 2003, a salary corresponding to Grade 4.6, as from 1 August 2005, a salary corresponding to Grade 4.8 and, as from 1 August 2007, a salary corresponding to Grade 4.9; | — | primarily: to pay the applicant, as from 1 August 2003, a salary corresponding to Grade 4.2 or, if the Tribunal considers it necessary, a salary corresponding to Grade 4.1; | — | in the alternative: to pay the applicant, as from 1 August 2003, a salary corresponding to Grade 4.6, as from 1 August 2005, a salary corresponding to Grade 4.8 and, as from 1 August 2007, a salary corresponding to Grade 4.9; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | primarily: to pay the applicant, as from 1 August 2003, a salary corresponding to Grade 4.2 or, if the Tribunal considers it necessary, a salary corresponding to Grade 4.1; | | | | |
| — | in the alternative: to pay the applicant, as from 1 August 2003, a salary corresponding to Grade 4.6, as from 1 August 2005, a salary corresponding to Grade 4.8 and, as from 1 August 2007, a salary corresponding to Grade 4.9; | | | | |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges in particular the Europol decision of 5 April 2007 and the addendum of 24 April 2007 to his recruitment contract inasmuch as those acts classified him in Grade 4, step 2, with effect from 1 December 2004 and not with effect from 1 August 2003, which was the date of his recruitment.

The applicant submits that Europol should have respected the principle of equality in remunerating and classifying the members of its staff. According to Europol, the decision to classify the applicant in a higher grade as from 1 December 2004, and not as from 1 August 2003, is justified by the fact that it was as from 1 December 2004 only that the applicant started performing activities of a similar importance to those of heads of unit classified in Grade 4 and involving similar responsibilities. The applicant challenges that argument and submits that Europol has failed to explain how his tasks and responsibilities in the period from 1 August 2003 to 1 December 2004 differed from those of other heads of units. Furthermore, Europol has not established the facts and circumstances to show that the applicant's activities were less intense and/or included fewer responsibilities than those of other heads of unit.

---