Case T-260/05: Action brought on 14 July 2005 by Peter Strobl against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-07-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, age discrimination, equal treatment, personnel administration, regulations for civil servants

C 229/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.9.2005

3. order the European Commission to answer his questions of
20.01.2004 sent to the Office of Investigation and Disci-
pline (IDOC);

3.

in the alternative, declare that the appointment must be
made at grade A*8;

4. order the Commission to give the reason for its decision to
withdraw the decision initiating disciplinary proceedings
against an official (Mr C);

4.

in the alternative, declare that the appointment must be
made at grade A*7;

5. order the payment of damages and interest in the amount

of EUR 1 000 000;

5. order the Commission to place the applicant in the financial
position he would be in if he had been correctly classified,
i.e. pay the difference;

6. order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the recognition of his psychological and
emotional problems as an occupational disease within the
meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations. He claims
infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, together
with the infringement of rights of the defence, the principle of
the protection of
transparency and
legitimate expectations,
legal certainty. He also claims a procedural error.

Action brought on 14 July 2005 by Peter Strobl against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-260/05)

(2005/C 229/60)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 July 2005 by Peter Strobl,
residing in Greifenberg-Beuern (Germany), represented by H.-J.
Rüber, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

6. order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant contests his appointment
at grade A*6 upon recruitment by the defendant in October
2004.

The applicant bases his claim on three grounds. Firstly, he
submits that there is infringement of the principle of legitimate
expectation. In the applicant's view, the notice itself, the proce-
dure followed on similar notices and the rules of the old Staff
Regulations in force at the time of the notice raised in the
applicant the well-founded expectation that, were he to be
recruited, it would be at grade A7/A6 or their equivalent under
the new Staff Regulations, namely grades A*8 or A*10 in
accordance with Article 12 of Annex XIII. His recruitment at
grade A*6 on the basis of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the new
Staff Regulations was unlawful. The consequence to the appli-
cant of the application of the new Staff Regulations by the
Appointing Authority is an infringement of the general require-
ment of
fails to satisfy the requirement of
certainty and does not comply with the principle that measures
should not be retroactive.

transparency,

As the second ground of his complaint, the applicant submits
that there is discrimination against him because of his age. His
classification at grade A*6 ought to have been made without
any reference to the age of the applicant.

Finally, the applicant submits that application of Article 12 of
Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations leads to inequality of
treatment of the applicant in comparison with colleagues from
other selection competitions and in other job placements who
are placed in a higher grade.

1. annul

the decision of

the
Commission of 7 October 2004 with regard to the inclusion
of the applicant in grade A*6;

the Appointing Authority of

2. declare that the appointment must be made at grade A*10;