Case T-432/04: Action brought on 22 October 2004 by Walter Parlante against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-01-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, equal treatment, personnel administration, promotion, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/41

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the explicit rejection of 8 July 2004 of the applicant's
complaint, the decision not to draw up an evaluation report
for the period 2001-2002 and the authority's decision not
to include her in the number of officials promoted to Grade
C2 in the promotion year 2003;

— annul the Agency's decision awarding the applicant part
only of the differential allowance mentioned in Article 7(2)
of the Staff Regulations as a result of his being called upon
to occupy a temporary posting between 13 January 2003
and 15 August 2004;

— order the defendant

the sum of
EUR 3 000 by way of compensation for her non-material
damage;

to pay the applicant

— order the defendant to pay the balance of the differential
allowance payable under Article 7(2) of the Staff Regula-
tions;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission, took sick leave in
October 2002. She has received an invalidity pension since
the appointing
September 2003.
authority decided not to draw up a staff report for the appli-
cant for the period 2001-2002. She therefore received no merit
or priority points for the promotion year 2003 and her name
was not included in the list of officials promoted to Grade C2.

It was on that basis that

the Staff Regulations and of

The applicant challenges the decisions at issue, pleading infrin-
gement of Article 43 of
the
general provisions implementing that article (decision of the
Commission of 26 April 2002) and of the principles of equal
treatment and proper administration. In that context, the appli-
cant claims that the Commission was not entitled, at the end of
2002 or at the beginning of 2003, to regard the applicant as
less than a year away from retirement for whom
an official
there was no reason to draw up a staff report. Challenging the
decision not to promote her to Grade C2, the applicant alleges
breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the princi-
ples of equal treatment and proper administration.

in this case who,

The applicant
like the defendant's legal
adviser, was called upon to occupy temporarily the duties of
the Agency's head of administration, because the holder of that
post was absent on sick leave, challenges the appointing
authority's decision to divide the amount of the differential
allowance between the two persons who filled the temporary
posting. He responded to that decision by stating that he did
not accept that he had worked part-time in replacing the head
of administration and that, in consequence, he was entitled to
the whole of the differential allowance in dispute.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges infringement of
Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations, and breach of the princi-
ples of correspondence between the grade and the post, of
non-discrimination and of proportionality.

He also considers that the duty to state the reasons on which
an act is based was not complied with in the circumstances.

Action brought on 11 October 2004 by José Antonio
the European Agency for Safety and
Carreira against

Health at Work

(Case T-421/04)

(2005/C 6/80)

Action brought on 22 October 2004 by Walter Parlante
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-432/04)

(2005/C 6/81)

(Language of the case: French)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Agency for Safety and Health
at Work was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 October 2004 by José Antonio
Carreira, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vander-
sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 October 2004, by Walter
Parlante,
represented by L.
Vogel, lawyer.

residing in Enghien (Belgium),

C 6/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.1.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Appointing Authority's decision adopted on 5
July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint dated 26
February 2004, by which he challenged the decision
refusing to promote him from Grade C2 to Grade C1, for
the 2003 promotion procedure;

— Annul the Appointing Authority's decision adopted on 2
July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint dated 1 March
2004, by which she challenged the decision refusing to
promote her from Grade C3 to Grade C2, for the 2003
promotion procedure;

— If, and in so far as necessary, annul also the Appointing
Authority's original decision in December 2003 refusing to
promote the applicant from Grade C2 to Grade C1, for the
2003 promotion procedure;

— If, and in so far as necessary, annul also the Appointing
Authority's original decision in December 2003 refusing to
promote the applicant from Grade C3 to Grade C2, for the
2003 promotion procedure;

— Order the Defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant relies on infringement of
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principle of
non-discrimination and manifest error of assessment. The appli-
cant submits that
the new promotion procedure does not
provide a proper fair examination of officials' individual merits
since the examination is made only by comparison with the
other officials of the same Directorate-General.

The applicant also alleges that Article 12 of the General Provi-
sions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations infringes
that Article and amounts to discrimination in that certain offi-
cials were,
in the course of the 2003 promotion procedure,
awarded additional priority points on the sole ground that they
were proposed for promotion in 2002 without actually being
promoted.

The applicant also relies on breach of the principle of legiti-
mate expectations.

— Order the Defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in
Case T-432/04.

Action brought on 22 October 2004 by Alex Milbert and
Others against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities

(Case T-434/04)

(2005/C 6/83)

Action brought on 22 October 2004 by Angela Davi
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-433/04)

(2005/C 6/82)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 October 2004, by Angela Davi,
residing in Brussels, represented by L. Vogel, lawyer.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 October 2004, by Alex Milbert,
residing in Hesperange (Luxembourg), Imre Czigàny, residing in
Rhode St. Genèse (Belgium), José Manuel De la Cruz González,
residing in Brussels, Viviane Deveen,
residing in Overijse
(Belgium), Mohammad Reza Fardoom, residing in Roodt-sur-
residing in Hünsdorf
Syre (Luxembourg), Laura Gnemmi,
in Bertrange
residing
(Luxembourg), Marie-José Reinard,
(Luxembourg), Vassilios
in Kraainem
residing
Stergiou,
(Belgium) and Ioannis Terezakis, residing in Brussels, repre-
sented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers.