ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/57

Action brought on 30 October 2007 — Coto Moreno v Commission

(Case F-127/07)

(2008/C 22/111)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Juana Maria Coto Moreno (Gaborone, Botswana) (represented by: K. Lemmens and C. Doutrelepont, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 12 February 2007 by which the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/28/05 refused to include the applicant in the reserve list for that competition, and consequently: — award her damages and interest of EUR 25 000 as compensation for non-material loss; — award her damages to cover legal fees estimated at EUR 8 000 as shown in the attached document; — declare, principally, that the competent authorities must adopt all appropriate measures fairly to compensate for the disadvantage caused by the annulled measure, that is to say the inclusion of the applicant in the reserve list or — award the applicant, failing such inclusion, in the alternative, compensation by way of damages and interest for her material loss in the amount of EUR 384 000;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant participated in the EPSO/AD/28/05 competition. The competition selection board refused to include the applicant in the reserve list for that competition by decision of 12 February 2007, which the applicant seeks to have annulled.

In support of her action, the applicant raises four pleas in law:

The first plea alleges, principally, a manifest error of appraisal either alone or in conjunction with a failure to state reasons and/or breach of the principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti. The selection board, whose position in that regard is ambiguous, took the view that the applicant gave ‘sufficient’ answers which nevertheless had weak points. That was manifestly not the case, particularly as the applicant answered in accordance with the Commission rules.

The second plea alleges, also principally, breach of the notice of competition and of the principle of equality either alone or in conjunction with compliance with the principle of reasonableness.

The third plea, also principally, alleges breach of the duty to state reasons in that the applicant clearly asked the selection board why an answer which she gave in the oral test was considered incorrect or at least insufficient. The applicant has not received any response despite the duty to state reasons.

Finally and in the alternative, the applicant alleges a manifest error of appraisal either alone or in conjunction with the principle of equality and the principle of proportionality. The mark awarded was, in addition, disproportionate in relation to the results (she was given the mark of 25/50) and is in breach of the principle of equality since the applicant was treated like any other candidate who gave answers considered sufficient, not only with regard to knowledge but also with regard to other criteria.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/30

Action brought on 29 July 2007 — Brown and Volpato v Commission

(Case F-75/07)

(2007/C 235/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Colin Brown (Brussels, Belgium) and Alberto Volpato (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities published in Administrative Notices No 55-2006 of 17 November 2006 inasmuch as it promoted the applicants to grade AD9, step 1, under the 2006 promotion exercise;

— in so far as is necessary, annul the Commission decisions of 23 April 2007 inasmuch as they dismissed the complaints brought by the applicants;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, Commission officials, challenge the decision to promote them, under the 2006 promotion exercise, to grade AD9, a new grade inserted, since 1 May 2004 between grades AD8 (formerly A7) and AD10 (formerly A6). They submit that they should have been promoted not to grade AD9 but to grade AD10, following the example of what had been done in the 2004 promotion exercise in respect of officials who, like the applicants, were in grade A7 on 30 April 2004 and were eligible for promotion to the next grade, A6.

The applicants rely on very similar pleas in law to the first and third pleas in law relied on in Case F-105/06 (1).

(1) OJ C 281, 18.11.2006, p. 45.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/49

Action brought on 10 December 2007 — Van Arum v Parliament

(Case F-139/07)

(2008/C 92/99)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Rinse Van Arum (Winksele, Belgium) (represented by: W. van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

(i) The applicant seeks alteration of his Staff Report and, alternatively, its annulment. As a further alternative, the applicant seeks an order that all evidence supporting certain contested remarks in his Staff Report be disclosed to him and that the Tribunal rule on the contested facts and marking. (ii) The applicant seeks an order that the appointing authority pay to him a token sum of one euro in compensation.

Form of order sought

— Alter the Staff Report;

— Alternatively, annul the report in its entirety;

— As a further alternative, order that all evidence supporting certain contested remarks in the Staff Report be disclosed to the applicant and rule on the contested facts and marking;

— Order the appointing authority to pay to him a token sum of one euro in compensation;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/38

Action brought on 19 December 2007 — Kaminska v Committee of the Regions

(Case F-142/07)

(2008/C 79/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Magdalena Kaminska (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and S. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: Committee of the Regions

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions of the Committee of the Regions of 30 April 2007 and of 6 September 2007 refusing the applicant payment of the daily allowance and rejecting her note of 6 June 2007 and an order for the defendant to pay default interest on the amounts due by virtue of daily allowance until full payment of the amounts due.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 30 April 2007 refusing the applicant payment of the daily allowance;

— annul, in so far as necessary, the decision of 6 September 2007 rejecting the applicant's complaint;

— order the Committee of the Regions to pay default interest on the daily amounts due by virtue of daily allowance from 16 April 2006 until full payment of the amounts due;
—

order the Commission to pay the remuneration which the applicant would have continued to receive if the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment had not terminated the contract of employment prematurely and unlawfully, and all the benefits to which the applicant is entitled;
—

an order that the defendant should indemnify the applicant for the damage caused by the measures whose annulment is sought in the sum of EUR 1 000 or such greater or lesser sum as the Court of First Instance may think fit;
—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 August 2007 rejecting the applicant's request for compensation of EUR 6 800 for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered in consequence of breaches of procedure or wrongful acts in the performance of public duties by the Commission in the promotion years 1998 and 1999;
—

In the alternative, annul the decision of the President of OHIM, transmitted to the applicant on 7 January 2008, rejecting the applicant's complaint of 27 August 2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/74

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2008 — Feral v Comité des Régions

(Case F-59/07) (1)

(2008/C 209/138)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

(1) OJ C 199, 25.8.2007, p. 51.
—

Order the Commission to pay damages in respect of the material and non-material damage suffered as a result of that decision, the former begin assessed at EUR 150 000 and the latter at the equivalent of a year of salary, namely EUR 150 000, those two assessments being provisional and subject to increase in the course of the proceedings;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/57

Action brought on 15 September 2008 — Vicente Carbajosa and Others v Commission

(Case F-77/08)

(2008/C 285/104)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Isabel Vicente Carbajosa (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

An application for a declaration that the Commission's decision to restrict publication of the competition notices EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 to three languages is unlawful, and that those competition notices are unlawful and, consequently, for annulment of EPSO's individual decisions not to admit the applicants to the tests in those competitions.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims the Tribunal should:

— Declare that the Commission's decision to restrict publication of the competition notices EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 to three languages is unlawful and that those competition notices are unlawful;

— Annul EPSO's individual decisions not to admit the applicants to the tests in competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 respectively;
—

annul the decision of the President of the Parliament of 22 May 2008 rejecting the applicant's claim for annulment of the contested decision;
—

consequently, (i) annul all decisions resulting from the decision not to promote the applicant communicated on 11 March 2008, including in particular the applicant's pay slips from March 2008 and (ii) order the defendant to pay EUR 10 000, determined ex aequo et bono, as compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;
—

in so far as is necessary, annul the explicit decision of the European Training Foundation of 10 July 2008 rejecting the applicant's complaint under Article 46 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;
—

Order the European Commission to pay to the applicant, in respect of his entitlement to full compensation for the damage suffered and in addition to the sums referred to above, the sum of EUR 1 949 689, that sum representing the difference between the total amount of the damage suffered and that of the lump sum benefit payable to the applicant under Article 73(2)(b) of the Staff Regulations;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/40

Action brought on 20 February 2009 — Almeida Campos and Others v Council of the European Union

(Case F-14/09)

2009/C 90/66

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Ana Maria Almeida Campos (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the appointing authority’s decisions not to promote the applicants to grade AD 12 under the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote to that grade, under the same promotion procedure, the officials whose names are included on the list of promoted officials published in Staff Note No 72/08 of 21 April 2008.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the decisions of the appointing authority not to promote the applicants to grade AD 12 under the 2008 promotion procedure (2008 session) and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote to that grade, under the same promotion procedure, the officials whose names are included on the list of promoted officials published in Staff Note No 72/08 of 21 April 2008;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 167/26

Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Armitage-Wilson v Europol

(Case F-36/09)

2009/C 167/50

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kate Armitage-Wilson (the Hague, the Netherlands) (represented by: W. J. Dammingh)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post, and the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the defendant informed the applicant that it could not offer her a permanent post and the decision of 7 January 2009 in response to a complaint, stating that the objections which the applicant had raised to the decision of 12 June 2008 were unfounded;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/51

Action brought on 24 April 2009 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission

(Case F-45/09)

2009/C 153/100

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicant’s career development report for 2007.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the applicant’s career development report for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2007;
—

Annul the measure of the Appeals Committee and, in any event, amend it in so far as it attributes to Mr De Nicola (instead of to his lawyer) the objection made to the three members of the committee and in so far as it states that the grounds of the objection were ‘nothing more than a simple challenge to the decision of 14 December 2007’, rather than the result of the admissions and abandonment of his claims which those three members wrongly attributed to Mr De Nicola;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/64

Action brought on 26 May 2009 — Maxwell v Commission

(Case F-55/09)

2009/C 180/120

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Allan Maxwell (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the claim for compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant during his leave on personal grounds taken to perform the duties of ‘EU Senior Adviser’ at the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), loss resulting from the failure to reimburse accommodation and education expenses.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 2 September 2008 rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 132 900 by way of reimbursement for accommodation and education expenses which he incurred in the course of his duties as EU Senior Advisor at KEDO;
—

order the defendant to pay to the applicant, for each day between tomorrow and the day on which the request of 22 September 2008 is granted in full and without any exception and the appropriate decisions or relevant acts, without any exception, are implemented, the sum of EUR 5 or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, to be paid on the first day of each month in respect of rights accrued during the previous month, by way of compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested decision and arising in the abovementioned period;
—

should that decision be regarded as an express decision refusing the request for assistance made by the applicant, annul the Commission's decision of 14 November 2008 in so far as it rejects the applicant's request for assistance in the context of the organisation of the ‘Worst Conflicts of Interest Award’ calling him into question and infringing his integrity and the presumption of innocence;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/52

Action brought on 15 December 2009 — Michail v Commission

(Case F-100/09)

2010/C 63/91

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Christos Michail (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Meidani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the defendant's decision rejecting the applicant's application under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations by reason of the harassment of which the applicant claims to have been a victim.

Forms of order sought

— Annulment of the decision dated 9 March 2009, rejecting the application for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;

— Order against the Commission to pay compensation for non-material damage amounting to EUR 30 000;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/82

Action brought on 20 November 2009 — Whitehead v European Central Bank

(Case F-98/09)

2010/C 24/157

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sarah Whitehead (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi, M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

The subject matter and description of the proceedings

An appeal against the decision dated 8 January 2009 awarding the applicant a salary increase of 2 points for the purpose of the Annual Salary and Bonus Review (ASBR) for the year 2008, received on 15 January 2009, as well as against the salary statement of 15 January 2009 implementing this decision.

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Central Bank dated 8 January 2009 on the Appellant's ASBR 2008, served upon her on 13 or 14 January 2009 (during her absence);

— annul the Appellant's salary statement of 15 January 2009, implementing this decision;

— as a consequence, order the payment of the amount of her salary representing the difference between the challenged 2008 ASBR and the ASBR which should have been granted to her, as of 15 January 2009 until complete payment, plus late interest at the rate equal to the margin lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

— in the case that the organisation of a new 2008 ASBR procedure would be found to entail excessive difficulties, order the award of the equivalent of 3 salary points to compensate the material prejudice;

— in any case, order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered evaluated ex aequo et bono at EUR 10 000;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 April 2010 — Allen v Commission

(Case F-23/10)

(2010/C 161/93)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Finola Allen (Armação de Pera, Portugal) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

The subject matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision rejecting an application for recognition of serious illness.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should order:

— The annulment of the 30 June 2009 decision rejecting her application for recognition of serious illness and, if necessary, the annulment of the 17 July 2009 decision;

— if needed, the annulment of the 8 January 2010 decision rejecting the Appellant's complaint;

— by consequence, the recognition of serious illness for her illnesses stated in her 19 May application as complemented on 2 July 2009 and the full coverage as of 1 July 2009;

— on a subsidiary basis, the coverage of the sickness insurance until 10 July 2009;

— the payment of damages evaluated ex aequo et bono and on a provisional basis at 1 Euro;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/69

Action brought on 15 January 2010 — AB v European Commission

(Case F-3/10)

2010/C 100/100

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AB (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas)

Defendant: European Commission

The subject matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of Decision of the EC Delegation in Laos, dated February 4th 2009 by which the Applicant was informed that his employment contract as contract agent would not be renewed and the Decision of the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment in response to the complaint.

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

— Cancel the contested decisions so that the applicant will be reinstated into the General Direction RELEX or into the European External Action Service, which will be established as of 1st April 2010;
—

Annul the decision refusing registration of the applicant’s new application to participate in competition EPSO/AD/177/10-LAW, which was confirmed in a communication from EPSO of 12 April 2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/59

Action brought on 11 May 2010 — Lorenzo v EESC

(Case F-29/10)

2010/C 179/103

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Guillermo Lorenzo (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to include the applicant among the officials promoted to grade AD13 under the 2009 promotion procedure.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the decision of the EESC appointing authority, adopted and published on 30 June 2009, not to include the applicant’s name on the list of officials promoted to grade AD 13 under the 2009 promotion procedure;

— So far as necessary, annul the EESC appointing authority’s decision of 5 February 2010 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;
—

order, as measures of organisation of procedure (cf. Article 55 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court), the production by the defendant of the criteria used by the jury for the oral test, the questions put to him by the competition jury during his oral test and the copy of the jury’s assessment sheet relating to that oral test together with the criteria used in their marking.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/42

Action brought on 22 June 2010 — Z v Court of Justice

(Case F-48/10)

()

2010/C 246/73

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Z (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision to impose on the applicant a disciplinary measure in the form of a written warning and for an order that the defendant pay a sum by way of compensation for non-material damage.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 10 July 2009 imposing a disciplinary measure on the applicant in the form of a written warning.

— So far as necessary, annul the decision of 10 March 2010, received on 15 March 2010, rejecting the complaint.

— Order the defendant to pay a sum of EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage.
—

In the alternative, if the Tribunal should take the view that the promotion to grade AST 8 cannot take effect before 1 January 2009, order the Parliament to pay additional damages as compensation for material damage of an amount corresponding to the difference in salary between that actually received in 2008 and that which should have been received in 2008 following the promotion on 1 January 2008, and calculated in respect of the period either from 1 January to 31 December 2008 or from 1 January to 31 August 2008, depending on the date on which the disputed promotion is deemed to have taken effect (respectively 1 January 2009 or 1 September 2008);
—

inform the Appointing Authority of the effects of annulment of the contested decisions, in particular classification in grade AD6 and the retroactivity of promotion to grade AD6 from the date on which it should have become effective, that is to say, 1 January 2009;