ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

Order OHIM to compensate the applicant for material damage amounting to the difference between: — on the one hand, her actual salary according to her formal classification as a member of the contract staff under Article 3a of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants (‘CEOS’) 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 was entitled as a member of the temporary staff under Article 2(a) of the CEOS from 1 November 2005 until 31 October 2008 and the unemployment benefits to which she was entitled from 1 November 2008 until today, calculated according to her salary for October 2008 under Article 2(a) of the CEOS – — together with 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, — and — to the extent required in order for the compensation applied for to be granted — annul the decisions of OHIM of 6 May 2009 and 4 December 2009;
—

order the Commission to pay to the applicant the difference between the amount paid by him in respect of medical expenses incurred between 1 December 2000 and 17 March 2007 inclusive, in relation to which numerous claims for reimbursement were made in the period between 1 December 2000 and 17 March 2009, and the amount reimbursed to him to date under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme, or such amount as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable in that connection, together with interest on the difference between such amounts or on such amount as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, from the first day of the fifth month after the date on which the addressee of the request of 17 March 2009 was in a position to inspect it, at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation, or at such rate with capitalisation and from such date as the Tribunal may consider appropriate.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/56

Action brought on 11 June 2010 — Lebedef v Commission

(Case F-44/10)

()

2010/C 209/91

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s request for authorisation to stay in a place other than his place of employment during sick leave.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims the Tribunal should:

— annul the decision of 13 August 2009 rejecting the request brought by the applicant for authorisation to stay in a place other than his place of employment during his sick leave from 3 August to 3 September 2009 and, in particular, during the period from 13 to 30 August 2009;

— grant the applicant damages for non-material harm equivalent to 5 days’ remuneration, calculated on the basis of one twentieth of his monthly remuneration per day compensated;
—

order the Commission to repay the sum taken back by the Commission with interest at the statutory rate from the date of recovery until settlement;
—

the recognition that he has been victim of harassment conducted by Mr. M. and Mr. A. and the necessary disciplinary consequences; or, alternatively, (i) the opening of a new administrative enquiry, fair, independent and impartial with the creation of a panel of experts for the performance of the administrative enquiry and (ii) the adoption of all the necessary measures in order to allow a fair enquiry without any possible pressures and interferences;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/58

Action brought on 26 May 2010 — Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB

(Case F-34/10)

()

2010/C 234/107

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: B. Cortese, C. Cortese and F. Spitaleri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the EIB’s decisions to increase the applicants’ contributions to the pension system and compensation for the non-material harm suffered by them.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decisions of the EIB relating to the applicants’ salary slips for February 2010, which increase the applicants’ contributions to the pension system, through the increase of the basis for calculation (the salary subject to deduction) of those contributions on the one hand, and of the coefficient for calculation, expressed as a percentage of that salary subject to deduction, on the other;

— order the Bank to pay a symbolic EUR 1, by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicants;
—

Annul the decision of the Director of the Directorate General for Personnel and Administration of the Commission of 9 October 2009 (ADMIN.B2/JJ/jm 0(09)) whereby the adminstration decided it did not need to take action in respect of the applicant's request to the Commission for assistance of 29 January 2009;
Action brought on 18 August 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-67/10)

()

(2010/C 288/140)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission's decision not to reimburse two-thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant in Case F-41/06.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

— annul the decision, whatever its form, which brought about the rejection by the Commission of the request of 22 September 2009 sent by the applicant to the appointing authority and amended by the note of 8 October 2009;

— annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision — whatever its form — by which the complaint of 5 April 2010 against the contested decision, sent by the applicant to the appointing authority, was rejected;

— annul, in so far as is necessary, the note of 27 April 2010 (HR.D.2/MB/1s Ares (2010) 220139);

— order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 21 608,75, together with interest calculated at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation, and running from the date of the request of 22 September 2009 until actual payment of the sum immediately due by way of reparation for the damage which has been, or is being, suffered by the applicant on account of the contested decision;
—

declare that that the applicants are not required to reimburse any payments made by the claims settlement office, Ispra and, consequently, order the Commission to withdraw the claim for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 41 833 — or any other such sum claimed — and to desist from any automatic deduction of that amount from the pension of Mr de Pretis Cagnodo, it having been confirmed and declared that Mrs Trampuz can in no way be criticised or censured regarding the calculation and payment of the costs of the hospital stay as claimed by the hospital where she was admitted, the illness which caused her to be hospitalised and the surgery which she underwent have been categorised as ‘serious’, and the length of time for which she was admitted regarded as inevitable and clinically correct;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/43

Action brought on 2 November 2010 — Trentea v FRA

(Case F-112/10)

()

2011/C 13/88

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cornelia Trentea (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: L. Levi and M.Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

The subject matter and description of the proceedings

First, annulment of the decision of the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment rejecting the Appellant's candidature for a post of administrative assistant in the procurement and finance fields and of the decision appointing another candidate. Second, compensation for material and non-material loss.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Decision of the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment of 5 June 2010 rejecting the Appellant's candidature for post (ref. TAADMIN-AST4-2009) and the Decision appointing another candidate;

— If necessary, annul the Decision of 22 July 2010 rejecting the Appellant's complaint and of the Decision of 27 September 2010 rejecting the Appellant's Request for review and Completion to the Complaint;

— Order that the Defendant compensates the Appellant's material prejudice corresponding to the difference between her current salary and the AST4 salary, until retirement age, including all allocations and indemnities and compensation of pension rights;

— Order that the Defendant compensates the Appellant's moral prejudice evaluated ex aequo et bono at 10 000 Euro;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/34

Action brought on 15 November 2010 — Psarras v ENISA

(Case F-118/10)

2011/C 63/61

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Aristidis Psarras (Heraklion, Greece) (represented by: E. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers)

Defendant: European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

First, annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant from his duties as accountant for the Agency and to appoint another person to that post. Secondly, application for payment to the applicant of a sum by way of compensation for the loss suffered owing to the contested acts and the harassment of which he claims to have been a victim.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of ENISA's Management Board of 7 February 2010 to dismiss the applicant from his duties as accountant for the Agency with immediate effect and to appoint another person to the post of accountant for an indefinite period;

— As a preparatory measure, annul Annex 1 of the decision of 7 February 2010 mentioned above; that Annex 1 is the proposal of the Executive Director to the Management Board to permanently assign the accountant's tasks to another person and to dismiss the applicant from his duties as accountant;

— If necessary, annul the decision of 1 March 2010 consequently adopted by the Executive Director to reassign the applicant to a new post;

— As a result of those annulments, reinstate the applicant to the post of accountant for the Agency;

— Order ENISA to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 by way of compensation, firstly, for the loss suffered owing to the contested decisions, and, secondly, for the non-material damage suffered because of the psychological harassment of which he was a victim, subject to increase during the proceedings;
—

Annul the decision by which the appointing authority fixed the new amount of the applicants’ remuneration, pensions and other allowances under the Staff Regulations, as set out in particular in the applicants’ salary slips R6/2009 and 01/2010, and annul the decision by which, on 24 June 2010, the appointing authority rejected the applicants’ complaint of 29 March 2010 in so far as those decisions deny the applicants an increase in their remuneration, pensions and allowances under the Staff Regulations equivalent to 3.70 % of the original amount, and dismiss their application for interest to be awarded to them on the amounts still owed to them at the rate laid down by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points, from the date on which the applicants became entitled to the sums at issue until full payment;
—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 11 May 2010, communicated to the applicant on 27 May 2010, to award only one merit point to the applicant for the reporting exercise for 2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/33

Action brought on 7 March 2011 — Nicolas Katrakasas v Commission

(Case F-24/11)

2011/C 152/60

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Nicolas Katrakasas (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the selection board not to include the applicant on the reserve list for competition COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD8.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decision of the selection board of 11 May 2010 upholding, following reconsideration, its decision of 9 March 2010 not to include the applicant on the reserve list for internal competition COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD8- Administrators specialised in anti-fraud;

— to the necessary extent, annul the decision of the European Commission of 25 November 2010 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

— annul the reserve list in so far as it does not include the applicant’s name, and all other decisions taken on the basis of that list;
—

Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 6 July 2010 downgrading the applicant by two grades in the same function group following the decision of the Appointing Authority of 16 November 2009 opening disciplinary proceedings against the applicant;
—

Annul the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AD/168/09-PL not to list the applicant as a successful candidate in that competition;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/30

Action brought on 3 August 2011 — ZZ v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

(Case F-80/11)

2011/C 319/65

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis. E. Marechal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision to terminate the applicant’s contract on disciplinary grounds and for payment of a sum by way of compensation for the material and non-material damage claimed to have been suffered.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the authority authorised to conclude the contracts of 11 October 2010 to terminate the applicant’s contract early, with two months’ notice, expiring on 11 December 2010;
—

Annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors to appoint another person to the to the post of Director of the Directorate for Human Resources and not to appoint the applicant to that post;
—

order the EIB to pay compensation for past and future physical, material and non-material damage caused to the applicant as a result of the illegality of the decision of the President of the EIB of 27 July 2011, the psychological harassment she suffered and maladministration on the part of the EIB, together with default interest;
—

order the Committee of the Regions to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of errors and negligence on the part of the Committee of the Regions in conducting various administrative and disciplinary procedures;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 October 2011 — ZZ v ECDC

(Case F-107/11)

(2012/C 25/132)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: E. Mylonas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period of 1 January to 31 December 2010.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the appraisal report of 8 February 2011; and

— if necessary, annul: — the decision of the Director of ECDC of 9 September 2011 rejecting the applicant's complaint; — the opinion of the Joint Committee of 30 June 2011 and the decision of the appeal assessor of 5 July 2011; — the report of the countersigning officer of 15 April 2011;
—

Annul the refusals to grant authorisation for the medical services sought by the applicant in favour of his son, his wife and himself, those refusals resulting from three decisions adopted respectively on 22 February, 10 March and 18 April 2011 by the Head of the Ispra Claims Office of the European Commission;
—

declare that the written reprimand issued by the Appointing Authority to the applicant, without the production of cogent evidence of the alleged acts of harassment of which his is accused and without a proper independent, impartial and fair investigation being carried out which would establish the truth about the alleged harassment which the applicant is accused of committing against his colleague, is a discretionary sanction which constitutes an act of discrimination by the Appointing Authority against the applicant;
—

Annul the decision of 30 May 2011 by which EMA refused to examine whether it was possible to renew the applicant’s contract;
—

annul the decision of the Management Board of the EMA of 6 October 2011 appointing the Executive Director of the EMA, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 91(4) of Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, that decision having been the subject of a complaint submitted to the appointing authority pursuant to Article 90 of those Staff Regulations;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 174/31

Action brought on 29 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-28/12)

2012/C 174/50

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request, first, to remove a sentence from the medical report of 28 February 2008, second, to send the report thus amended to the doctor chosen by the applicant and, third, to remove in general from the file on the work-related injury any information relating the claim, which the applicant maintains is incorrect, that the powder with which the applicant came into contact was ultimately shown to be the white dust of a copy of a newspaper to which the applicant subscribed.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision rejecting the applicant’s claims set out in the request of 23 December 2010;

— In so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the complaint of 10 July 2011 against the decision rejecting the request of 23 December 2010;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/28

Action brought on 20 January 2012 — ZZ v EASA

(Case F-8/12)

2012/C 65/56

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B.-H. Vincent, lawyer)

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant and compensation for damage claimed to be suffered because of that dismissal and alleged harassment.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— order EASA to pay EUR 1 514 257,48 in compensation for material and non-material damage associated with the loss of the applicant’s temporary staff post, with the addition of interest at the legal rate from the date at which interest is due;

— order EASA to pay a daily sum fixed on an equitable basis at EUR 500,00 per day from 31 May 2010 until the date of service of final judgment as compensation for the entirety of the damage caused by harassment committed by EASA agents, with the addition of interest at the legal rate from the date at which interest is due;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/37

Action brought on 14 March 2012 — ZZ v BEREC

(Case F-35/12)

2012/C 138/87

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications

Subject-matter and description of the dispute

Annulment of the decision to apply a medical retention provision to the applicant following the pre-recruitment medical examination as from his entry into service and the decision to reject the applicant’s objection.

Forms of order sought by the applicant

— Annul the decision to reject the applicant’s objection to the decision to apply a medical retention provision to him as from his entry into service;

— where necessary, annul the decision to apply a medical retention provision to the applicant as from his entry into service;
—

Annul the decision annulling and replacing the proposals for the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights made in his application under Article 11(2) in Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations, which contains a new proposal calculated on the basis of the GIPs adopted on 3 March 2011.
—

So far as necessary, annul the decisions concerning calculation of the value of their pension rights acquired before they entered the service of the Commission;
—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 1 February 2012 to assign the applicant to a post in unit D5 instead of unit A4;
—

If necessary, annul the decision of 18 April 2012 rejecting the claims brought against the decisions not to promote him to grade AD12 in respect of promotion years 2010 and 2011;
—

Annul the decision of 15 November 2011 not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 13 in the 2011 promotion exercise;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/41

Action brought on 28 September 2012 — ZZ v EIB

(Case F-107/12)

2012/C 366/83

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the of the EIB’s implied decision not to recalculate the applicant’s years of pensionable service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request of 10 July 2011 for the European Investment Bank to recalculate his years of pensionable service and order the defendant to pay the sum resulting from the recalculation;

— order the European Investment Bank to allow the applicant to benefit from a recalculation of his years of pensionable service to take account of the additional 6 years and one month of contributions;

— order the European Investment Bank to pay the sum determined ex aequo et bono and in the provisional amount of EUR 5000 for the non-material harm suffered;
—

In the alternative, order the Commission to pay to him, as compensation for the damage to his career which he would otherwise suffer as from that date, the difference between the remuneration and the pension rights which he would have acquired if his appointment at the OIL had been renewed for an indefinite period and the remuneration or income which serves as a substitute for it and the pension which he might otherwise have received;