Case T-224/05: Action brought on 10 June 2005 by Olivier Chassagne against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-08-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, French overseas department and region, action by staff, allowances and expenses, regulations for civil servants, rights of civil servants

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/27

Pleas in law and main arguments

European Communities on 10 June 2005 by Olivier Chassagne,
residing in Brussels, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues and
Yola Minatchy, lawyers.

The applicant was a candidate for external competition COM/
B/1/02 intended to constitute a reserve for future recruitment
for administrative assistants of grade B5 or B4. Having been
successful in that competition, he received an offer of a post
from Commission DG RELEX by electronic mail on 20 April
2004. On 21 April 2004 he accepted that offer. However, the
instrument of appointment was not drawn up until 31 August
2004 since the applicant first had to terminate the contract
between him and his previous employer. By application of the
new provisions of the Staff Regulations which came into force
on 1 May 2004, he was recruited at grade B*3, step 2, although
the former grade B5, stated in the notice of competition, corre-
sponds to the new grade B*5. His basic salary was, therefore,
significantly lower than it would have been under the former
system.

The applicant therefore seeks annulment of the contested deci-
sions relating to his appointment and the setting of his grade
and compensation for the loss which he alleges he has suffered.
Under his first plea, he alleges infringement of the principle of
legitimate expectations, of the duty of the administration to
have regard for the interests of officials and of the binding
provisions of the notice of competition. In that context, he also
submits that the decision appointing him was, in reality, taken
before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations by the
exchange of electronic mails on 20 and 21 April 2004.

Furthermore, by his second plea, the applicant alleges infringe-
ment of the principle of non-discrimination, on the ground
that he was appointed to a grade lower than that stated in the
notice of competition and to which other successful candidates
from the same competition were recruited.

Action brought on 10 June 2005 by Olivier Chassagne
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-224/05)

(2005/C 205/49)

(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

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare unlawful, and therefore inapplicable to the appli-
cant, Article 8 of Annex VII to the new Staff Regulations of
Officials of the European Communities;

— award the applicant EUR one (1) by way of compensation
for the non-pecuniary damage sustained and the sum of
EUR seven thousand three hundred and seventy two
(7 372) by way of compensation for the financial damage
sustained;

— order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission, is originally from
the island of La Réunion, a French overseas department. He
the present action following the rejection of a
brought
complaint which he had lodged against his payslip for August
2004, containing reimbursement of his annual
travelling
expenses.

In support of his action, the applicant claims that Article 8 of
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, relating to reimbursement
of officials' annual travelling expenses to their place of origin,
is unlawful. He contends that that provision is contrary to
Community law in that
treatment
connected with the place of origin of officials and also to discri-
mination contrary to Articles 12 EC and 299 EC as against offi-
cials originating from French overseas departments, and also as
regards nationality,
the fact of belonging to a language
minority, ethnic origin or race.

it gives rise to unequal

The applicant also claims that that provision infringes other
general principles of Community law, such as the obligation to
state reasons and the principles of proportionality, transparency
and sound administration, and also the principle of legitimate
expectations and legal certainty.