# C_2005115EN.01003301.xml

| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/33

---

Action brought on 28 February 2005 by Joerg Peter Block and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-114/05)

(2005/C 115/59)

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 28 February 2005 by Joerg Peter Block, residing in Sterrebeek (Belgium), and 12 others, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues and Alice Jaune, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decisions of the appointing authority rejecting the complaints of the applicants taken at the same time as the decisions of the appointing authority of 1 May 2004 altering the applicants' grades to Grade A*8 or Grade B*8 as the case may be; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions of the appointing authority rejecting the complaints of the applicants taken at the same time as the decisions of the appointing authority of 1 May 2004 altering the applicants' grades to Grade A*8 or Grade B*8 as the case may be;

| — | annul the salary statements of the applicants implementing the decision of the appointing authority to alter the applicants' grades to Grade A*8 or Grade B*8 as the case may be, from 1 May 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the salary statements of the applicants implementing the decision of the appointing authority to alter the applicants' grades to Grade A*8 or Grade B*8 as the case may be, from 1 May 2004;

| — | inform the appointing authority of the effects of the annulment of the contested decisions namely, inter alia, the reclassification of the applicants' grades to Grade A*9 or Grade B*9, as the case may be, with retroactive effect from 1 May 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

inform the appointing authority of the effects of the annulment of the contested decisions namely, inter alia, the reclassification of the applicants' grades to Grade A*9 or Grade B*9, as the case may be, with retroactive effect from 1 May 2004;

inter alia

| — | in the alternative, order the Commission to recognise that the applicants are eligible for promotion to Grade A*10 or Grade B*10, as the case may be, when they are next promoted; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, order the Commission to recognise that the applicants are eligible for promotion to Grade A*10 or Grade B*10, as the case may be, when they are next promoted;

| — | order the Commission to make good the damage suffered by the applicants as a result of their not being classified in Grade A*9 or Grade B*9, as the case may be, from 1 May 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to make good the damage suffered by the applicants as a result of their not being classified in Grade A*9 or Grade B*9, as the case may be, from 1 May 2004;

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

—

order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are all officials of the Commission who were appointed at Grade A7 and B2 before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations on 1 May 2004. They contest their classification in Grade A*8 and B*8 respectively pursuant to Article 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

In support of their application the applicants submit that the application to them of that provision is unlawful, as it breaches Article 6 of the Staff Regulations, the principles of equivalence of the old and new career structures and of equal treatment, as well as the applicants' legitimate expectations and established rights. The applicants also allege misuse of powers.

---