EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/27

Appeal brought on 18 November 2008 by Pilar Angé Serrano, Jean-Marie Bras, Adolfo Orcajo Teresa, Dominiek Decoutere, Armin Hau and Francisco Javier Solana Ramos against the judgment delivered on 18 September 2008 in Case T-47/05 Angé Serrano and Others v Parliament

(Case C-496/08 P)

(2009/C 44/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Pilar Angé Serrano, Jean-Marie Bras, Adolfo Orcajo Teresa, Dominiek Decoutere, Armin Hau and Francisco Javier Solana Ramos (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— declare the appeal admissible, and consequently: — as regards Mrs Angé Serrano, Mr Bras and Mr Orcajo Teresa, annul the judgment under appeal, first, in so far as it holds that there is no need to adjudicate with respect to them as regards their first plea and, secondly, in so far as it dismisses their claim for damages; — as regards Mr Decoutere, Mr Hau and Mr Solana Ramos, annul points 2 and 4 of the judgment under appeal and the grounds relating thereto;

— give judgment in the dispute and, upholding the applicants' initial action in Case T-47/05: — annul the decisions concerning the applicants' classification in grade following the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations; — order the European Parliament to pay damages, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 60 000 for each applicant

— in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs at both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance ruled on the actions by the six applicants, all officials of the European Parliament who were successful in internal competitions carried out under the old Staff Regulations but whose classification was amended following the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations.

The first three applicants make three pleas in support of their appeal.

In their first plea, they argue that, by holding that there was no need to adjudicate, the Court of First Instance made an error of law and failed in its duty to state reasons. The applicants argue that they retain an interest in bringing an annulment action against the disputed classification decisions, despite their having been replaced by the subsequent individual decisions of 20 March 2006, inasmuch as the Court of First Instance itself took the view that those new decisions did not fully remedy the damage suffered by the applicants since they did not re-establish classification in a higher grade. Moreover, the contested decisions were based on Articles 2 and 8 of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations, the legality of which they argue is open to challenge.

In their second plea, those applicants claim that the Court of First Instance failed in its duty to state reasons by rejecting their claim for damages, whereas classification in grade in accordance with the new Staff Regulations placed them at the same level as their colleagues who had not passed the competition for change of category, and thus caused them severe damage.

The three latter applicants make a single plea in support of their appeal, arguing that Articles 2 and 8 of Annex XIII of the new Staff Regulations are unlawful.

In that respect, the applicants claim, first, that the Court of First Instance infringed acquired rights and the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations in holding that classification in a higher grade following their success in competitions held under the old Staff Regulations did not constitute an acquired right and could not, therefore, give rise to any legitimate expectation.

In support of the same plea, the applicants argue, secondly, that the Court of First Instance infringed the principle of equal treatment inasmuch as, following reclassification in grade carried out under the new Staff Regulations, they were treated identically with their colleagues who had not passed the same competitions. Moreover, the Court of First Instance applied different treatment to identical situations by concluding that successful candidates of the same competition did not constitute a single category, the rules for classification in grade differing, it its estimation, according to the date on which the classification took place. Application of different provisions to successful candidates of the same competition, namely Articles 2(1) and 5(4) of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations, was thus contrary to the principle of equal treatment.