Case F-9/07: Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Angé Serrano v Parliament
Date: 2005-02-05
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action by staff, assistant, competition (EU), promotion, staff assessment

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/31

The second plea alleges infringement of the principles of sound
administration, equal treatment, objectivity and protection of
legitimate expectations in that the applicant's pre-selection tests
were marred by incidents which disturbed her and deprived her
of some of the time allowed to her, without her having been
authorised to start the tests over again or be granted extra time.

By her third plea, the applicant alleges, first, infringement of the
principle of equal treatment in that the questions put were
chosen in a random manner in a base containing questions of
very varying levels, the validity of some of which was dubious
and, second,
infringement of the principles of protection of
legitimate expectations and transparency and the obligation to
state reasons in that EPSO did not provide her with the ques-
tions put to her.

step 8. In support of her claim, the applicant relies on pleas in
law which are very similar to those put forward in Case T-47/
05. Moreover, she submits that, despite her new classification,
the system arising from the reform of the Staff Regulations calls
into question the effectiveness of her change of category from C
to B, since the new classification does not confer any benefit on
the applicant when her situation is compared with that of her
colleagues who have not been successful in a competition for
change of category.

(1) Case T-47/05 Angé Serrano and Others v Parliament, OJ C 93,

14.4.2005, p. 36.

Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Angé Serrano v
Parliament

(Case F-9/07)

(2007/C 69/62)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Botos v Commis-
sion

(Case F-10/07)

(2007/C 69/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pilar Angé Serrano (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (repre-
sented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant: Patricia Botos
L. Vogel, lawyer)

(Meise, Belgium)

(represented by:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 20 March
2006 to reclassify the applicant in Grade B*6, step 8, with
effect from 1 May 2004;

— order the defendant to pay, by way of compensation for
material and non-material damage and harm to the appli-
cant's career, the sum of EUR 25 000, subject to increase
and/or decrease in the course of the proceedings;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of
the European Parliament and
successful candidate in a competition for change of category
(from Category C to Category B) before the reformed Staff Regu-
lations entered into force on 1 May 2004, has already brought
an action before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities
in
Grade B*5 (1).

the decision to reclassify her

against

— annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on
30 October 2006, by which it dismissed the complaint
brought by the applicant on 24 April 2006 against the six
following administrative decisions: (i) decision adopted on
23 January 2006 by the Office for the Administration and
Payment of Individual Entitlements; (ii) decision adopted on
23 January 2006 by the Head of
the Brussels Payment
Office of the Joint sickness insurance scheme; (iii) decision
adopted on 9 February 2006 by the Office for the Adminis-
tration and Payment of Individual Entitlements; (iv) decision
adopted on 9 February 2006 by the Head of the Brussels
Payment Office of the Joint sickness insurance scheme; (v)
decision adopted on 20 February 2006 by the Head of the
the Joint sickness insurance
Brussels Payment Office of
scheme;
the
the reimbursement of
(vi) breakdown of
medical expenses drawn up by the Brussels Payment Office
of the Joint sickness insurance scheme, dated 23 February
2006;

— in so far as necessary, annul also the six aforementioned

decisions;

In the present case, the applicant challenges the Parliament's
decision of 20 March 2006 to reclassify her in Grade B*6,

— order the defendant to pay the costs.