Case T-333/05: Action brought on 29 August 2005 — Ezerniece Liljeberg and Others v Commission
Date: 2005-08-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, professional career, promotion, staff assessment

12.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/29

Action brought on 29 August 2005 — Ezerniece Liljeberg
and Others v Commission

(Case T-333/05)

(2005/C 281/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Kristine Ezerniece Liljeberg (Brussels, Belgium), and
Others (represented by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi, C. Ronzi,
lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

— Annul the decision appointing the applicants in so far as it

establishes their grade as grade A*6;

— Consequently, wholly restore the applicants' rightful career
prospects (including giving proper weight to their experi-
ence in the grade thus adjusted, their promotion rights and
their pension rights), whilst observing strict equality in rela-
tion to the other officials who were successful candidates in
the same competition and work in European institutions
other than the Commission;

— Grant the applicants default interest at the rate fixed by the
European Central Bank on all the sums corresponding to
the difference between the salary corresponding to their
grade in the decision of recruitment and the grade to which
they should have been entitled, up to the date on which the
decision properly grading them is taken;

— Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

employs

lawyer-linguists

the Commission itself

that
as
temporary agents at grade A*7. On that basis, the applicants
claim infringement of the principle of equal treatment and
non-discrimination, of Article 1d(1) of the Staff Regulations, of
the principle of assignment to an equivalent post and grade, of
Article 9(3) of the Treaty of Amsterdam and, finally, of Article
13(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

Moreover, the applicants claim that the Commission assured
them that they would be recruited at grade A*7 and, on that
basis, they allege infringement of the principle of the protection
of legitimate expectations, the principle of legal certainty, the
principle of good administration, the principle of good faith,
the principle of transparency and of the duty to have regard for
the welfare and interests of officials.

Action brought on 29 August 2005 — Wineke Neirinck v
Commission

(Case T-334/05)

(2005/C 281/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Wineke Neirinck (Brussels, Belgium) (represented
by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Form of order sought

The applicants are officials of the Commission entrusted with
lawyer-linguist duties who were recruited on the basis of lists
of suitable candidates resulting from competitions at LA 7/LA
6 levels before 1 May 2004. Article 13(2) of Annex XIII to the
Staff Regulations provides that in such a case the institutions
may recruit
lawyer-linguists at grade A*7 instead of A*6.
However, the Commission did not exercise that power and
recruited the applicants at grade A*6.

The applicants are challenging that decision with their applica-
tion, claiming that the other institutions would have appointed
successful candidates in the same position at grade A*7 and

— Annul the implied decision rejecting her claim for damages
the express decision

and, so far as may be necessary,
rejecting her complaint;

— Award damages for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss
sustained by her following the breach of the Commission's
promise to recruit her to the Investigatory and Disciplinary
Office (IDOC) with effect from 1 May 2004 at the latest,
at
that
EUR 576 593,20;

amount

aequo

being

bono

fixed

ex

et

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.