# C_2006121EN.01001902.xml

| 20.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/19

---

Action brought on 13 March 2006 — Arnaldos Rosauro and Others v Commission

(Case F-29/06)

(2006/C 121/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Andres Arnaldos Rosauro and Others (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the applicants' instruments of appointment, taken together with the remuneration slips which they have received since the date of their advancement from category C to category B, in that the slips appoint them in grade B*3/B*4 and retain their basic salary as it was before the change of category through the application of a multiplier; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the applicants' instruments of appointment, taken together with the remuneration slips which they have received since the date of their advancement from category C to category B, in that the slips appoint them in grade B*3/B*4 and retain their basic salary as it was before the change of category through the application of a multiplier;

| — | Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority to remove the applicants' promotion points ('rucksack') following their advancement from category C to category B; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority to remove the applicants' promotion points ('rucksack') following their advancement from category C to category B;

| — | Inform the Appointing Authority of the consequences of those annulments, that is to say, with retroactive effect from the day of their advancement from category C to category B: (1) the appointment of the applicants in grade B*5/B*6 under Article 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, (2) the payment to them of the basic salary to which they are entitled under the Article 2(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations without a multiplier, (3) their retention, after their advancement to category B, of the merit points and transitional points which they accumulated when they were employed in category C; |
| --- | --- |

—

Inform the Appointing Authority of the consequences of those annulments, that is to say, with retroactive effect from the day of their advancement from category C to category B: (1) the appointment of the applicants in grade B*5/B*6 under Article 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, (2) the payment to them of the basic salary to which they are entitled under the Article 2(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations without a multiplier, (3) their retention, after their advancement to category B, of the merit points and transitional points which they accumulated when they were employed in category C;

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are all successful candidates of the internal competition for change of category COM/PB/04, the notice for which was published before the date when the new Staff Regulations entered into force. After that date, they were appointed by the defendant to the higher category but, because of the application of a multiplier, that did not entail an increase in their remuneration. In addition, their promotion points were re-set at zero.

In their action, the applicants submit three complaints, the first of which is that their appointment to grade B*3/B*4 is unlawful to the extent that the equivalent grades to those referred to in the competition notice are the grades B*5/B*6, in accordance with Article 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

So far as the second complaint is concerned, the applicants argue that the application of a multiplier to their remuneration is contrary to, on the one hand, the Staff Regulations, which make no mention of the application of such a factor in this instance, and, on the other hand, the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of acquired rights.

Lastly, as regards the third complaint, the applicants maintain that the cancellation of their promotion points is contrary to the spirit of Article 45a of the Staff Regulations and Article 5 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, and the principle of equal treatment.

---