ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 131/50

Action brought on 13 March 2006 — Perez-Minayo Barroso and Pino v Commission

(Case F-31/06)

(2006/C 131/92)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Isabelle Perez-Minayo Barroso (Brussels, Belgium) and Marco Pino (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Declare that Articles 5 and 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations are unlawful;

— Annul the specific decisions appointing the applicants as Administrators, in that they set their classification pursuant to Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

— Annul the specific decisions to remove the points accumulated by the applicants in their former category, forming their ‘rucksack’;

— Annul the specific decisions to apply a multiplier lower than 1 for the purposes of determining the applicant's remuneration;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are successful candidates in the internal competition for change of category COM/PA/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 their previous grade, step and multiplier were retained. However, their promotion points were re-set at zero.

In their action, the applicants submit, first, that the contested decisions infringe the legal framework formed by the notice for the competition which they passed, and Articles 5, 29 and 31 of the Staff Regulations, the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects and the principle of proportionality.

The applicants claim, second, that those decisions also infringe the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. On one hand, the classification of successful candidates in the same competition or in competitions at the same level is set at different levels depending on whether recruitment occurs before or after the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations. On the other hand, the applicants are at a disadvantage compared with the officials appointed as Administrators under the certification procedure, in that the latter retain their promotion points, while the applicants' ‘rucksacks’ were re-set at zero.

Lastly, according to the applicants, the contested decisions are contrary to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in so far as they were entitled to expect to be appointed to the grades given in the competition notice.
—

annul the appointment of the applicant of 21 December 2006, in that it grades her as Director at Grade A*15, step 1, and fixes her length of service in that step as from 1 November 2005, following her re-appointment on 15 November 2005 to the post of Director of Directorate B (Multilateral relations and human rights) of RELEX, a re-appointment which followed annulment of her first appointment to the same post in Case T-218/02 Napoli Buzzanca v Commission;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/50

Action brought on 22 October 2007 — Strack v Commission

(Case F-120/07)

(2007/C 315/95)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the decisions of the European Commission of 30 May 2005, 25 October 2005, 15 March 2007 and 20 July 2007 to the extent that they limit to 12 the number of days of unused annual leave for 2004 which the applicant was allowed to carry over to the following year and to limit accordingly the compensation for unused leave paid to the applicant at the time that he left the service;

— Order the European Commission to pay the applicant financial compensation for 26,5 days unused leave in respect of which no compensation has been paid in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations, plus interest, from 1 April 2005, at a rate of 2 % per year above the main refinancing operations rate fixed by the European Central Bank for the period in question;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant invokes an infringement of the first and second paragraphs of Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations and of the defendant's Administrative Notice No 66-2002. According to those provisions, he was entitled to carry over in its entirety to 2005 that part of his annual leave for 2004 which, by reason of the requirements of the service, he had been unable to use up before the end of the calendar year 2004, something which the defendant's contested decision refused him permission to do. He was unable to use up his leave due to the illness which the defendant has in the interim accepted is occupational in nature.

The applicant also claims that it can be seen from the accessory claim for damages that the defendant unlawfully refused to pay the compensation due to the applicant in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations at the time that the applicant left the active service.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/37

Action brought on 29 October 2007 — Hau v European Parliament

(Case F-125/07)

(2008/C 79/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Armin Hau (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Appointing Authority not to include the applicant's name on the list of those to be promoted to grade B*6 and B*7 in the ‘2006 promotion exercise’;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement of the second paragraph of Article 25 and Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the decision of the Office of 6 July 2005 and its implementing measures, and Article 5 of the Internal Guidelines for Promotions Advisory Committees.

Furthermore, the applicant claims the existence of manifest errors of assessment, misuse and arrogation of powers, and infringement of a number of general principles of law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 116/33

Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Miguelez Herreras v Commission

(Case F-22/08)

(2008/C 116/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Benedicta Miguelez Herreras (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. van der Woude, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of 17 April 2007 in so far as it awards the applicant no additional priority points and therefore upholds the award of two priority points and a total of 23 points in the 2003 Promotion procedure, and an order that the defendant pay compensation.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 17 April 2007 in so far as it awards the applicant no additional priority points and therefore upholds the award of two priority points and a total of 23 points in the 2003 Promotion procedure;

— order the defendant to pay compensation of EUR 5 000;
—

Annul the decision of the EPSO/AST/7/05 selection board awarding to the applicant a mark which was insufficient for entry on the list of successful candidates;
—

Order the examination of the personal files of all the candidates whose names are included in the list of successful candidates in order to verify that all of them have a level of education which corresponds to completed university studies of at least three years attested by a diploma in law and that they submitted their applications within the time limits and in the correct form;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 158/27

Action brought on 31 March 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-42/08)

(2008/C 158/50)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, avvocato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Confirmation of the fact that, on 18 March 2002, the Delegation of the European Commission in Angola despatched by fax a note, dated 18 March 2002 and addressed to the applicant, to a tele-fax machine which was neither under the applicant's control nor at his disposal; confirmation of the unlawful nature of that action; and an order directing the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 100 000 by way of damages.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

— annul the decision — in whatever form — rejecting the application dated 8 March 2007;

— annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision — in whatever form — rejecting the complaint dated 10 September 2007;

— annul, in so far as is necessary, the note dated 9 January 2008;

— confirm that, on 18 March 2002, the Delegation of the European Commission in Angola despatched by fax a note, dated 18 March 2002 and addressed to the applicant, to a tele-fax machine identified by the telephone/fax number +39.0833.54xxxx, and confirm and declare that that action was unlawful;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant, by way of compensation for past and present damage suffered in relation to the act which gave rise to the damage and caused by that act, the sum of EUR 100 000 — or, in the alternative, whatever sum, greater or smaller, that the Tribunal considers to be fair and just — together with compound interest, at the rate of 10 % per annum, calculated from the date of the application dated 8 March 2007 until the date of satisfaction;
—

Annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the Court of Auditors to designate the director of translation as the applicant's reporting officer and, himself, to be his countersigning officer;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 183/33

Action brought on 19 May 2008 — Giannini v Commission

(Case F-49/08)

(2008/C 183/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Massimo Giannini (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for, first, annulment of the decision dismissing the applicant and an order that the defendant pay all the pecuniary rights linked to the continuance of the contract, as well as annulment of a number of decisions refusing the applicant entitlement to pecuniary rights. Secondly, an application for compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered by the applicant.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the decision dismissing the applicant, communicated on 10 July 2007;

— So far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting his complaint, notified on 5 February 2008;

— Order the Commission to pay all the pecuniary rights linked to the continuance of the applicant's contract (inter alia, the basic salary, after deduction of the unemployment allowance paid, the allowances and reimbursements calculated over the duration of three years of the contract, and the travel expenses from the place of employment to the place of origin) plus default interest from the time when each of those rights became due until full payment, calculated at a rate three points above that set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, as applicable during the period in question;

— In any event, annul the decisions of 27 July 2007 and of 20 September 2007 to withhold EUR 5 218,22 from the applicant's remuneration for August 2007, corresponding to part of the travel expenses from the applicant's place of employment to his place of origin and, consequently, the reimbursement of that sum of EUR 5 218,22 plus default interest from 15 August 2007 until full payment, calculated at a rate three points above that set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, as applicable during the period in question;

— In any event, annul the decision of 28 August 2007 to limit the installation allowance to one third of the sum received in November 2006 and to recover the other two thirds, that is EUR 4 278,50, from the remuneration of February 2006 and, consequently, order the reimbursement of that sum of EUR 4 278,50 plus default interest from 15 February 2008, until full payment, calculated at a rate three points above that set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, as applicable during the period in question;

— Allocate damages and interest to compensate for the material and non-material harm suffered, provisionally valued at EUR 200 000;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/59

Action brought on 10 October 2008 — Gheysens v Council

(Case F-83/08)

(2008/C 313/109)

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

Annulment of the decision of the Council fixing the conditions of the applicant's recruitment in so far as it limits the duration of the contract to two years and classifies him in function group III, grade 11, step 1 and a declaration that Article 88 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants is illegal in so far as it authorises successive contracts for a fixed period subject to an overall limit of three years.

Form of order sought

— Declare that Article 88 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants is illegal in so far as it authorises successive contracts for a fixed period subject to an overall limit of three years;

— Annul the decision of the Council fixing the conditions of the applicant's recruitment in so far as it limits the duration of his contract to two years and classifies him in function group III, grade 11, step 1;
—

Annul the decision of 4 October 2007 whereby the defendant informed the applicant that there was no possibility of his being offered a permanent position, along with the decision of 29 April 2008 rejecting his complaint brought against the first decision and the decision of 12 June 2008 in furtherance of that of the 4 October 2007;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/54

Action brought on 12 December 2008 — Di Prospero v Commission

(Case F-99/08)

(2009/C 69/119)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Rita Di Prospero (Uccle, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodriguez and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of EPSO's decision not to accept the applicant's application for competition EPSO/AD/117/08

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to have allowed the applicant to submit an application for competition EPSO/AD/117/08;
—

in consequence, reinstatement of the applicant forthwith in his duties, in the post and at the grade that were his at the time of the decision of 15 April 2008, with retroactive effect, and payment of his salary from 15 July 2008 until the date of his actual reinstatement, with default interest at the rate of 7 % per annum;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/53

Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Putterie-de-Beukelaer v Commission

(Case F-1/09)

(2009/C 55/96)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Françoise Putterie-de-Beukelaer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the 2007 attestation procedure.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 30 September 2008 to reject the applicant's complaint relating to the decision that her application for the 2007 attestation procedure was inadmissible;

— Annul the Appointing Authority's decision that her application for the 2007 attestation procedure was inadmissible;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/47

Action brought on 9 March 2009 — Marie-Hélène Willigens v Council

(Case F-22/09)

2009/C 113/100

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marie-Hélène Willigens (Glabais, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, of the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the appointing authority’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/55

Action brought on 30 January 2009 — Faria v OHIM

(Case F-7/09)

(2009/C 69/122)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marie-Hélène Faria (Muchamiel, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the evaluation report in respect of the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007, and an order that the defendant pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims the Tribunal should:

— Annul the evaluation report in respect of the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007;

— So far as necessary, annul the decision of 17 October 2008 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant;

— Order the defendant to pay damages to compensate for the non-material harm suffered, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 100 000;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 167/26

Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Martin v Europol

(Case F-38/09)

2009/C 167/52

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Breige Martin (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: P. de Casparis)

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;
—

Annul the decision of 13 November 2006 appointing the applicant an official to the extent that that decision affects his AST 1-7 career path;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/48

Action brought on 19 May 2009 — Petrilli v Commission

(Case F-51/09)

2009/C 205/89

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Petrilli (Grottammare, Italy) (represented by: J.-L. Lodomez, J. Lodomez, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the appointing authority’s decision concerning the fixing of the applicant’s main place of residence.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decision of 19 February 2009 by which the appointing authority refused to fix the applicant’s main residence in Italy;

— order the Commission to pay, on the sums due by virtue of the retroactive application of the correction coefficient for Italy on his pension, the resettlement allowance and the doubling of the family allowance, from 1 July 2007, interest on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations applicable for the period in question, increased by two points;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/64

Action brought on 17 April 2009 — Knöll v Europol

(Case F-44/09)

2009/C 180/118

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Brigitte Knöll (Hochheim am Main, Germany) (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 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 applicant’s objections to the decision of 12 June 2008 were unfounded;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/66

Action brought on 26 September 2009 — Lenz v Commission

(Case F-80/09)

2009/C 282/127

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Erika Lenz (Osnabrück, Germany) (represented by: J. Römer and V. Lenz, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 May 2009 not to pay the costs of the applicant’s treatment by a non-medical practitioner

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the defendant’s decision of 4 May 2009 in the form of the decision of 8 July 2009 rejecting the complaint and order the defendant to reimburse 85 % of the costs of EUR 297 in respect of the non-medical practitioner, that is to say, in this case, EUR 253;

— Declare that the defendant must reimburse to the applicant all the medical costs in the form of non-medical practitioners’ fees incurred after 1 April 2009;
—

establish the applicant as an official as from 1 March 2008, and also grant her entitlement to compensation corresponding to the difference between the remuneration she would have received had she been established as an official on 1 March 2008 and the emoluments she has actually received as from that date until the date of judgment; otherwise, in the alternative, reinstate the applicant in her functions as a probationary official either in the same unit where she was prior to her dismissal or in another unit in the institution in order that she may complete a fresh probationary period;
—

Order the Commission to pay compensation for the damage arising as a result of the failure to pay the applicant remuneration and related emoluments for the period 1 April 2006 — 1 March 2009 and interest on the sum due.
—

order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 96 579 175 (increased by default interest calculated using the base rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations increased by two percentage points, from 1 January 2006) as compensation for the material loss he suffered as a result of the off-handedness and the unreasonable period in which the Commission handled its case concerning the recognition of the accidental origin of the infarct which he suffered on 28 August 2002;