Case T-131/05: Action brought on 21 March 2005 by Carlos Andrés and Others against the European Central Bank
Date: 2005-05-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Central Bank, European official, action by staff, wage determination

C 132/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.5.2005

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants claim that the Court should:

successful candidates

The applicants in this case, who were all recruited after 1 May
2004 as
in competitions for which
notices had been published before that date, object to the
alleged discrimination arising from the fact that their condi-
tions of classification, in accordance with Article 12 of Annex
XIII to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 amending the
Staff Regulations of Officials, are different from those of the
successful candidates in the same competitions who were
recruited before that amendment of the Staff Regulations.

In support of their claims, the applicants plead:

— breach of the principle of equal treatment,

— infringement of Articles 31(1) and 29(1) of the Staff Regula-

tions,

— annul the applicants' salary statements for July 2004;

— order the defendant to pay damages to compensate for the
harm suffered by the applicants, consisting of the award of
EUR 5 000 per
applicant on account of a loss of
purchasing power since 1 July 2001, of arrears of pay
corresponding to an increase in the applicants' salary of
1,86 % for the period from 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002,
0,92 % for the period from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003
and 2,09 % for the period from 1 July 2003 to 30 June
2004, and of the application of interest to the amount of
the applicants' arrears of salary from their respective due
date until the date of actual payment. That rate of interest
should be calculated on the basis of the rate set by the
European Central Bank for the main refinancing operations,
applicable during the period concerned, plus two points.

— infringement of Article 5(5) of the Staff Regulations,

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

— breach of

the principle of

the protection of

legitimate

expectations.

The applicants submit in that regard that it is apparent from
Community case-law that the successful candidates in a compe-
tition are in a comparable situation and must therefore be
accorded the same treatment. In addition, they submitted their
applications with a view to being recruited to fill one of the
vacant posts referred to in the respective notices of the compe-
titions which they passed. They were therefore entitled to foster
reasonable expectations of being recruited to the posts and at
the grades specified in the notices of the competitions which
they passed.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the European Central Bank (ECB), and of

The subject-matter of this case is the salary increase contained
in the applicants' salary statements for July 2004, which they
claim was established in disregard of the obligation to consult
the staff of
the
methods of calculation relating to general salary adjustments,
as organised by an agreement concluded between the manage-
ment and the staff (‘the Memorandum of Understanding’). It is
also disputed that the increase in question, applied following
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November
2003 in Case T-63/02 Cerafogli and Poloni v ECB [2003] ECR-
SC I-A-291 and II-1405, did not have retroactive effects for the
years 2001, 2002 and 2003.

In support of their claims, the applicants plead:

Action brought on 21 March 2005 by Carlos Andrés and
Others against the European Central Bank

— infringement both of Article 45 and 46 of the Conditions
of Employment and of the Memorandum of Understanding,
and breach of the principle of good administration;

(Case T-131/05)

(2005/C 132/58)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 21 March 2005 by Carlos Andrés, residing in Frankfurt am
Main, and eight others, represented by Georges Vandersanden
and Laure Levi, lawyers.

— breach of the duty to state reasons, as well as,

in this
instance, a manifest error of assessment. It is argued in this
regard that the tables drawn up by the Bank to justify the
proposed percentage salary increase in question are the
result of an incorrect application of the methods of calcula-
tion;

— breach of

the principle of

the protection of

legitimate

expectations.