Case T-66/05: Action brought on 17 February 2005 by Jörn Sack against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-04-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, action for annulment (EU), bonus payment, equal pay, personnel administration

C 106/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul

the Commission's decision of 5 April 2004 to
appoint the applicant a probationary official in so far as it
does not grade him on recruitment at grade A6 and was
adopted without considering the possibility of allowing him
additional seniority in grade in accordance with Article 32
of the Staff Regulations and Article 4 of the internal direc-
tives of 11 October 1984;

2. order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in this case objects to his grading as a proba-
tionary official in the JRC Directiorate General at grade A7 at
the time of his appointment.

In that regard, he alleges infringement both of Articles 31 and
32 of the Staff Regulations and of the internal directives of 11
October 1984 on the fixing of the grade and step of staff, and
more specifically that of officials in the scientific and technical
services who occupy posts paid from appropriations in the
research budget.

Having regard to his claims, the applicant maintains inter alia
that, at the time of his recruitment as an official, he already
had proof of more than eight years of professional experience
qualifying for additional seniority.

— set aside the negative decision of the Director-General of
the Directorate General for Administration of 26.11.2004
concerning the applicant's complaint of 21.6.2004;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

in the Legal Service of

The applicant was an official
the
Commission in grade A*14. Due to his special function within
the Legal Service he applied for recognition as a middle
manager with consequent entitlement
increments
prescribed in Articles 44(2) and 46 of the Staff Regulations and
in Article 7(4) of Annex XIII thereto.

to the

In support of his claim, the applicant argues that the decision
rejecting his complaint was formally deficient in that it was
drawn up exclusively in English, although the applicant's first
complaint was written in German and that it infringed Article
253 EC by not addressing the wholly individual nature of his
complaint.

The applicant further complains of an infringement of the
treatment in the assessment and
general principle of equal
grading of his job. The applicant argues that his duties and
responsibilities were on a par with those entrusted to the Head
of Unit. The fact that his successor was granted higher-grade
pay constituted a further infringement of the principle of equal
treatment.

Action brought on 17 February 2005 by Jörn Sack against
the Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 15 February 2005 by Aytan's Manufac-
turing Company (UK) Limited against
the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs)

(Case T-66/05)

(2005/C 106/67)

(Case T-67/05)

(2005/C 106/68)

(Language of the case: German)

(Language in which the application was lodged: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17.02.2005 by Jörn Sack, Tervuren
(Belgium), represented by U. Lehmann-Brauns and D. Mahlo,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the decisions on the assessment of his remunera-
tion from May 2004 to February 2005 due to a breach of
the principle of equal treatment and reassess his remunera-
tion for those months with due regard to that principle;

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15
February 2005 by Aytan's Manufacturing Company (UK)
Limited, established in London (United Kingdom) represented
by S. Malynicz, Barrister and M. J. Gilbert, Solicitor.

Criminal Clothing Limited,
(United
Kingdom) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board
of Appeal.

established in Poole

The applicant claims that the Court should: