ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 247/26

Action brought on 25 July 2008 — De Smedt and Others v Parliament

(Case F-66/08)

(2008/C 247/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Emile De Smedt (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the individual decisions of the appointing authority refusing to grant the applicants the allowances for shiftwork referred to in Article 56a of the Staff Regulations pursuant to Council Regulation No 1873/2006 of 11 December 2006 amending Regulation No 300/76 determining the categories of officials entitled to allowances for shift work, and the rates and conditions thereof, and those allowances referred to in Article 56b of the Staff Regulations pursuant to Council Regulation No 1945/2006 of 11 December 2006 amending Regulation No 495/77 determining the categories of officials entitled to, and the conditions for and rates of, allowances for regular standby duty.

Form of order sought

— Annul the individual decisions of the appointing authority refusing to grant the applicants the allowances for shiftwork referred to in Article 56a of the Staff Regulations pursuant to Council Regulation No 1873/2006 of 11 December 2006 amending Regulation No 300/76 determining the categories of officials entitled to allowances for shift work, and the rates and conditions thereof;

— Annul the individual decisions of the appointing authority refusing to grant the applicants the allowances referred to in Article 56b of the Staff Regulations pursuant to Council Regulation No 1945/2006 of 11 December 2006 amending Regulation No 495/77 determining the categories of officials entitled to, and the conditions for and rates of, allowances for regular standby duty;
—

Annul the decision of 4 March 2008, which adversely affects the applicant inasmuch as it definitively confirms and approves his periodical report for the period from 1 January 2007 to 30 April 2007;
—

Annul, in so far as is necessary, the express decision of the European Training Foundation of 10 July 2008 rejecting the complaint which the applicant had submitted under Article 46 of the Conditions of Employment and Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;
—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority published in the staff notice No 75/08 of 24 April 2008, listing the AST officials (career path I-11) proposed for promotion in the 2008 promotion year;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/37

Action brought on 6 February 2009 — Vicente Carbajosa and Others v Commission

(Case F-9/09)

(2009/C 82/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision adopting and publishing the competition notices EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 and the decisions relating to the correction of the pre-selection tests and the written tests and the awarding of marks for the oral tests.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the Commission's decisions publishing and fixing the conditions for admission to and the conduct of the tests in competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08;

— Annul the decisions of the selection boards for competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 relating to the correction of the pre-selection tests and the written tests and the awarding of marks for the oral tests;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 167/25

Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Sluiter v Europol

(Case F-34/09)

2009/C 167/48

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Rudolf Sluiter (Hillegom, the Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

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 him 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 him 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 129/21

Action brought on 30 March 2009 — Lebedef and Jones v Commission

(Case F-29/09)

2009/C 129/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) and Trevor Jones (Ernzen, Luxembourg)) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to refuse to increase the purchasing power of salaries in Luxembourg to a level equivalent to that of the purchasing power of salaries in Brussels and, second, annulment of the applicants’ pay slips issued from 15 June 2008.

Form of order sought

— Annul the implied decision to refuse to increase the purchasing power of salaries in Luxembourg to a level equivalent to that of the purchasing power of salaries in Brussels;

— Annul, secondly, the applicants’ pay slips issued for the period from 15 June 2008;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/50

Action brought on 26 June 2009 — Donati v ECB

(Case F-63/09)

2009/C 205/93

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Paola Donati (Frankfurt on Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi, M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the ECB’s decision not to take further action on the claims relating to alleged psychological harassment suffered by the applicant, and compensation for the non-material harm suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decision of the Board of Directors of 16 December 2008 in so far as it involves a threat and an attempt to intimidate the applicant;

— annul the decision of the Board of Directors of 16 December 2008 in so far as it does not contain a decision on the result of the administrative investigation and on the final outcome of the applicant’s complaint; in the alternative, annul the Board of Director’s decision of 16 December 2008 in so far as it contains an ‘implied’ decision to take no further action on the applicant’s complaint and not to adopt subsequent measures, in particular not to open disciplinary proceedings;

— annul, so far as is necessary, the decision of 16 April 2008 rejecting the applicant’s ‘special appeal’;

— order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 10 000;
—

Annul the Commission’s decision to recruit the applicant as a technical assistant, with effect from 10 March 2009, with the classification AST3/Grade 2, in so far as it fails to confer on him the rights and remuneration necessary to ensure correct implementation of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-145/06 Pascual García v Commission, and in particular: (a) in so far as it fails to provide that the applicant’s qualifying period of service is to be calculated from 1 April 2006 for the purposes of advancement within the classification and the calculation of pension rights and all other relevant purposes; (b) in so far as it denies the applicant’s right to the expatriation allowance in Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 312/45

Action brought on 19 October 2009 — Rossi Ferreras v Commission

(Case F-85/09)

2009/C 312/74

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Francisco Rossi Ferreras (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Action for annulment of the applicant's career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002.

Form of order sought

— Annul the applicant's career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;
—

Order OHIM to compensate the applicant for material damages amounting to the difference between: — on the one hand, her actual salary according to the formal classification as contract staff member under Article 3a of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants from 1 November 2005 until 31 October 2008 and the unemployment benefits paid to her from 1 November 2008 until today, and — on the other hand, the salary to which she is entitled as temporary staff member under Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants from 1 November 2005 until today — in the alternative, at least the salary to which she is entitled as temporary staff member under Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants from 1 November 2005 until 31 October 2008 and the unemployment benefits to which she was entitled calculated according to her salary for October 2008 under Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants – — and the resulting losses to retirement pension and other indemnities, salary and benefits taking into account appropriate promotion based on her performance until 1 April 2008,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/51

Action brought on 22 December 2009 — Allen and Others v Commission

(Case F-103/09)

2010/C 37/80

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: John Allen (Oxford, United Kingdom) and Others (represented by: P. Lasok, I. Hutton, B. Lask, Barristers)

Defendant: European Commission

The subject matter and description of the proceedings

An application for damages and for the annulment of a decision refusing to pay damages in respect of the loss suffered by each applicant as a result of the fact that each of them was not recruited as a temporary servant of the Communities during the time when they worked at the JET Joint Undertaking.

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

— annul the Commission’s Decision dated 25 September 2009;

— declare that the applicants had a right to, and should have been, treated as “other personnel” and/or recruited as such, in accordance with Article 8 of the original JET Statutes;

— declare that the Commission discriminated against the applicants without objective justification during their engagement on the JET Project as regards their remuneration, pension rights and related benefits, and security of future employment;

— order the Commission to compensate the applicants for the loss of earnings, pensions, and related benefits and privileges occasioned by the aforesaid breaches of Community law, including interest thereon as appropriate;

— order the costs of this appeal to be paid by the Commission; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/81

Action brought on 13 November 2009 — Skareby v Commission

(Case F-95/09)

2010/C 24/155

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Carina Skareby (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The subject matter and description of the proceedings

An appeal lodged against the decision of the Commission rejecting the applicant’s request that an administrative inquiry be opened in order to establish the psychological harassment she alleges to have been a victim of.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare her appeal admissible;

— annul the decision of the Commission of 4 March 2009 and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;
—

grant to the applicant (for calculation purposes and in respect of the financial compensation) all the days of leave (in total 29 days) which he had accrued and had not yet taken at the time he began his leave of absence;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/69

Action brought on 25 January 2010 — Gheysens v Council

(Case F-8/10)

2010/C 100/102

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Johan Gheysens (Mechelen, Belgium) (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

The annulment of the Council’s decision not to extend the applicant’s contract and, as a result, to terminate his employment relationship with the Council.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the decision not to extend the applicant’s contract beyond 30 September 2009 and the refusal to take any measure to regularise the administrative situation of the applicant, who has carried out permanent tasks at the institution for 16 years;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/54

Action brought on 31 May 2010 — Vakalis v Commission

(Case F-38/10)

()

2010/C 209/86

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ioannis Vakalis (Luvinate, Italy) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements determining the pension rights of the applicant on their transfer to the European Union scheme.

Form of order sought

— Declare that the Commission decision No 60/2004 of 28 April 2004 is vitiated by illegality;

— annul decision PMO-4/TP D(2009)/434514716;

— annul the decision rejecting the complaint;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/58

Action brought on 7 May 2010 — Mioni v Commission

(Case F-28/10)

2010/C 179/102

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gaëtan Barthélémy Maxence Mioni (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision terminating the payment of the expatriation allowance previously granted to the applicant.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the decision adopted by the authority authorised to conclude contracts (AACC) on 18 June 2009, by which the payment of the expatriation allowance which had been previously granted to the applicant, under Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, was terminated, and the decision adopted by the AACC on 28 January 2010 by which the complaint brought by the applicant on 2 October 2009 was rejected;
—

Annul the decision of the European Parliament not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2009 promotion exercise and the decisions to promote to that grade officials with less merit (points) than him;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 246/43

Action brought on 9 July 2010 — Moschonaki v Commission

(Case F-55/10)

()

2010/C 246/76

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Chrysanthe Moschonaki (Brusssels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision refusing to take into consideration the applicant’s application for a post as a library assistant and an order that the Commission pay her a sum by way of compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the appointing authority’s decision of 30 September 2009, by which it refused to take into consideration the applicant’s application in consequence of the publication of the vacancy notice COM/2009/1379 for the post of library assistant within DGT.D.3;

— so far as necessary, annul the appointing authority’s decision of 31 March 2010, rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 28 December 2009 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

— grant the applicant damages of EUR 30 000 in respect of the material and non-material harm she suffered;
—

Uphold the applicant’s complaint and grant him full reimbursement of all the disputed invoices relating to the school year 2009/2010, namely, payment of the sum of EUR 2 580 by the PMO;
—

with regard to compensation for non-material damage, order the defendant, as the principal claim, properly to reinstate the applicant and to pay him a symbolic Euro or, in the alternative, to pay him the sum, fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono, of EUR 300 000, together with late payment interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment;
—

annul the Commission's decision of 10 September 2010 rejecting the applicant's complaint in part on grounds other than those relied upon in the contested decision of 27 April 2010;
—

First, annul the decision to reduce the ‘education allowance’ paid to the applicant, as evidenced from the pay slip for February 2010, and annul that pay slip in so far as it reduces the ‘education allowance’ in part; second, annul the decision of the Commission of 26 February 2010, relating to the reduction of the ‘education allowance’ paid to the applicant and the deduction of EUR 770,85 from that allowance, the deduction appearing on the pay slip for March 2010; third, annul the pay slip for March 2010 reducing the ‘education allowance’ paid to the applicant and containing a retroactive deduction of EUR 770,85; fourth, annul the pay slips from April to August 2010, in so far as they contain a reduction in part of the ‘education allowance’; and fifth, annul the decision of the Commission of 9 July 2010 expressly rejecting the complaint;
—

annul the contracting authority’s decision rejecting the applicant’s complaints against his CDR for 2008 and the decision to terminate his contract; order the EACEA to pay an amount which should be no less than the amount of the applicant’s salary (and all the benefits provided for in the CEOS), calculated from the date on which the applicant’s employment ended on 12 February 2010 until the date of reinstatement within the agency as a result of the annulment of the decision to terminate his employment, by way of compensation for professional and financial damage, together with late payment interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be given;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/63

Action brought on 15 October 2010 — Massez and Others v Court of Justice

(Case F-101/10)

()

2011/C 30/124

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Lieven Massez (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicants’ salary adjustment slips for the period from July to December 2009 and the salary slips issued since 1 January 2010 within the framework of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants pursuant to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Complaints Committee of the Court of Justice of 29 June 2010 rejecting the applicants’ complaints regarding their salary adjustment slips for the period from July to December 2009 and their salary slips issued since 1 January 2010;

— to the extent necessary, annul the decisions of the Court of Justice on the establishment of the applicants’ salary adjustment slips for the period from July to December 2009 and salary slips since 1 January 2010;

— order the Court of Justice to pay the applicants the arrears of remuneration, plus default interest;
—

Consequently, reinstate the applicant in his functions as a titular official with effect from 1 April 2010 and award him the amount of remuneration which he should have received as a titular official since that date, including all ancillary rights (such as pension rights), which he assesses, provisionally and ex aequo et bono, at EUR 39 600;
—

Annul the decision of the Parliament of 4 January 2011 to reject the applicant’s complaint against the decision not to promote him to grade AD7 in the 2009 promotion exercise;
—

Place the European Commission under an obligation to refund the applicant the sums, not owed, which she will have paid by the time the judgment is delivered in the present case, in relation to the redemption of pension rights;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 211/35

Action brought on 25 May 2011 — ZZ v ECB

(Case F-60/11)

2011/C 211/71

Language of the case: english

Parties

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

Defendant: European Central Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the ECB's decision confirming its previous decision to suspend the applicant with effect from 5 August 2010 and the claim for damages.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the ECB dated 23 November 2010 confirming the decision of 4 August 2010 to suspend the Appellant and, if necessary, of the decision of 15 March 2011 rejecting the special appeal;

— as a consequence, order the full reinstatement of the Appellant in his function with the appropriate publicity in order to restore his good name;

— in any case, order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the Appellant evaluated ex aequo et bono at 20 000,00 EUR;
—

annul all related, consequent and prior measures, including both the guidelines laid down by the HR Directorate for summarising the appraisal by using one of the first letters of the alphabet and the promotions decided upon on 25 March 2010, given that, in the light of the view expressed by the applicant’s superiors that is challenged in the present action, the EIB failed to take him into consideration for the purpose of the heading ‘Promotions from Function E to D’;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 290/20

Action brought on 22 July 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission

(Case F-72/11)

2011/C 290/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

First, annulment of the decisions setting the promotion thresholds for the 2010 and 2011 exercises as regards grades AD13 and AD14 and, secondly, annulment of the list of officials promoted to grades AD13 and AD14 for the 2010 exercise and annulment of the Commission’s implied decision not to promote a larger number of other officials to grades AD12 or AD13.

Form of order sought by the applicants

— Annul the decisions setting the promotion thresholds for the 2010 and 2011 exercises at grades AD13 and AD14 which were published in Administrative Notices Nos 3-2010, 65-2010 and 76-2010;

— annul the list of officials promoted to grades AD13 and AD14 for the 2010 exercise which was published in Administrative Notices No 65-2010 in so far as that list was drawn up on the basis of unlawful promotion thresholds, and annul the Commission’s implied decision not to promote a larger number of other officials to grades AD12 or AD13;

— annul, to the appropriate extent, the decisions dismissing the applicants’ complaint;