Case T-288/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by Harald Mische against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-07-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, equal treatment, personnel administration, professional career, regulations for civil servants

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/35

Action brought on 15 July 2005 by Idoia Bengoa Geisler
and two other officials against the Court of Justice of the
European Communities

Action brought on 20 July 2005 by Harald Mische against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-287/05)

(2005/C 229/74)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-288/05)

(2005/C 229/75)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 July 2005 by Idoia Bengoa
Geisler, Cristina López Roca and Maria Manuela Farrajota, resi-
dent in Luxembourg, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier
Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the decisions to appoint the applicants officials of
the European Communities in so far as those decisions fix
their recruitment grade pursuant to Articles 12 and 13 of
Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, officials of the Court of Justice recruited after 1
May 2004 as successful candidates in the competitions for
which the notices had been published before that date, chal-
lenge the alleged discrimination resulting from the fact that the
conditions under which they have been graded, in accordance
with Article 12 of Annex XIII to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No
723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials, are
different to those of successful candidates in the same competi-
tions recruited before that amendment to the Staff Regulations.
They submit, in support of their application, the same pleas in
law and arguments as those adduced in Case T-130/05 (1).

(1) OJ C 93 of 16.4.2005, p. 38.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 July 2005 by Harald Mische,
resident in Brussels (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden
and L. Levi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— grant the cancellation of the grading given in the recruit-
ment decision dated 11 November 2004 of the Appointing
Authority to grade the applicant on his recruitment to DG
Competition as junior lawyer at grade A*6, step 2, implying
the reinstatement of all his rights as deriving from a legal
and regular employment, i.e. a legal and regular grading as
of 16 November 2004, which means at minimum an A7/3
grading (valid as of 1 November 2003) or its equivalent
according to Articles 1-11 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regu-
lation (A*8/3);

— grant the award of damages ‘intérêts de retard’, compensa-
tion for his prejudice to his career, and other damages in
form of a legal and regular pay, notably the application of
the transitional provision contained in Article 21 of Annex
XIII of the Staff Regulation in force as of 1 May 2004 or,
alternatively, the lowering of contributions to the pension
scheme based on the principle of equal pay. These rights
will have to be duly evaluated at a later stage and are now
evaluated, provisionally and ex aequo et bono, at a
minimum of EUR 10 000 per year;

— order that the Commission pays all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant participated in competition PE/96/A published
on 23 May 2002. He succeeded the competition and was put
on the reserve list on 27 May 2004. During this period, the
applicant had started working for the Commission, first as
temporary agent in grade A7, then as auxiliary agent in grade
B. Following the competition, the applicant was recruited by
the European Parliament with effect from 16 November 2004
and transferred to the Commission. The applicant was then
graded in grade A*6.

C 229/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.9.2005

The applicant states that he seeks equal treatment compared to
officials recruited between June 2003 and end of April 2004.
In support of his application, the applicant invokes the illegality
of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the revised Staff Regulations.
According to the applicant, that article violates the principle of
equal treatment and of non discrimination, Article 31 of the
revised Staff Regulations, Article 5 of the revised Staff Regula-
tions together with the principle of equal treatment and non
discrimination, the principle of equivalence of position and
grades, Article 7 (1) of the Staff Regulations and Annex IA to
the Staff Regulations, as well as, finally, the principle of legal
certainty, the principle of non retroactivity and the applicant's
acquired rights and his legitimate expectation. The applicant
furthermore submits that Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No
723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations
of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of
Employment of other servants of the European Communities (1)
infringes Article 10 of the Staff Regulations.

The applicant also invokes a violation of the principle of good
administration, the principle of due care, the principle of trans-
parency, the principle of good faith and the principle of equal
treatment and non discrimination.

(1) OJ L 124, p. 1

Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Arcangelo Milella and
Another against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities

(Case T-289/05)

(2005/C 229/76)

(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 26 July 2005 by Arcangelo Milella,
resident in Niederanven (Luxembourg), and Delfina Campanella,
resident
in Luxembourg, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas,
lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the decision of 18 April 2005 of the Director-
General for Personnel and Administration of the Commis-
sion in so far as it specifies that the d'Hondt rule is a
method for allocating seats of representatives of the Local

Staff Committee for Luxembourg (LCSL) on the Central
Staff Committee (CSC) in accordance with the proportion-
ality principle, and requests the LCSL to bear that rule in
mind for the purpose of adopting a new decision as regards
the appointment of its members to the CSC;

— establish the illegality of the decisions of 26 April and 10
May 2005 of the Local Staff Committee for Luxembourg
allocating its representatives to the Central Staff Committee
in so far as they allocate five seats to list No 2 and two
seats to list No 1 in accordance with the d'Hondt method,
and not four seats to list No 2 and three seats to list No 1
in accordance with the largest remainder method;

— annul the decision of 11 May 2005 of the Director-General
for Personnel and Administration confirming that the new
appointments of
its representatives to the Central Staff
Committee made by the Local Staff Committee for Luxem-
bourg on 26 April and 10 May 2005 had been properly
effected;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The dispute concerns the appointment of representatives of the
Local Staff Committee of
the Commission in Luxembourg
(LCSL) to the Central Staff Committee of the Commission (CSC)
following the elections of 24 November 2004. By letter of 18
April 2005, the Director-General of the DG ADMIN of the
Commission pointed out to the chairpersons of the LCSL and
CSC that he considered the ‘d'Hondt rule’, which is a mathema-
tical method chosen to divide the seats within the CSC
amongst the lists put forward for the elections, to be in accord-
ance with the proportionality principle. However, by that same
letter, the Director annulled, on separate grounds, the appoint-
ments of the representatives to the CSC. Following that letter,
the LCSL, on 26 April 2005, appointed new representatives, in
accordance with the d'Hondt method.

By letter of 11 May 2005, the Director-General of the DG
ADMIN confirmed that he considered those appointments to
be in order.

The applicants, officials of the European Commission posted in
Luxembourg, contend that those decisions should be annulled.
They claim that there has been an infringement of the final
paragraph of Article 14 of the Regulations of 27 April 1988
on the composition and functioning of the Staff Committee
adopted by the Commission, and of the rule that the allocation
of seats within the CSC should be in proportion to the alloca-
tion of seats on the LCSL and of the principle that the CSC be
representative. The applicants allege that a different method of
seat allocation, namely the largest remainder method, should
have been adopted and would have resulted in a more repre-
sentative allocation.