Case T-284/05: Action brought on 14 July 2005 against the Commission of the European Communities by Christos Michail
Date: 2005-09-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, personnel administration, staff assessment

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/33

Action brought on 13 July 2005 by Daniele Baraldi and
Others against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities

Action brought on 14 July 2005 against the Commission
of the European Communities by Christos Michail

(Case T-283/05)

(2005/C 229/70)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-284/05)

(2005/C 229/71)

(Language of the case: Greek)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 July 2005 by Daniele Baraldi,
resident in Alkmaar (Netherlands), Jacobus De Bruijn, resident
in Ispra (Italy), and Christel Schilleger-Musset,
in
Brebbia (Italy), represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure
Levi, lawyers.

resident

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the grade classification laid down for the appli-
cants in the decisions relating to their recruitment in so far
as that classification is based on Article 12(3) of Annex XIII
to the new Staff Regulations;

— consequently,

reconstruct

the applicants' career bracket
(including the assessment of their experience in the grade
thereby rectified, and of
their promotion and pension
rights, which were determined, in particular, in accordance
with Article 21 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations), to
reflect the grade in which they should have been appointed
on the basis of the notice of competition pursuant to which
they were placed on the recruitment reserve list, either that
stated in the competition notice, or in the equivalent grade
in accordance with the new Staff Regulations (and in the
appropriate step in accordance with the rules applicable
before 1 May 2004), as from the appointment decision;

— award the applicants payment of default interest, on the
basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank, on the
total sum corresponding to the difference between the
salary for the grade laid down in the recruitment decision
and that for the grade to which they should have been
entitled up to the date of the decision as to their correct
grade;

— order the Commission to pay the entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and the main arguments raised by the appli-
cants are identical to those raised in Case T-58/05 Centeno
Mediavilla and Others v Commission (1).

(1) OJ C 93 of 13.4.2005, 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 14 July 2005 by Christos Michail,
resident
represented by Charalambos
Meidanis, lawyer.

in Brussels, Belgium,

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested acts/decisions;

— order that financial reparation be made for non-material
damage in the amount of EUR 90 000 (ninety thousand);

— make an order as to costs as laid down by law.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a Commission official, seeks the annul-
ment of his career development report for the period from
1.4.2003 to 31.12.2003 and an order that financial reparation
be made for the non-material damage which he claims to have
suffered. He claims in support of his application that the report
in question did not contain a description of his post, since,
moreover, as he claims, during the period in question he
simply did not occupy any post. He also claims that the report
in question did not even contain a description of his individual
to be attained and did not contain any
objective goals
reasoning for the points he was given; it was drawn up by a
body and person having no competence to do so; it was not
drawn up on the basis of his actual work but was based on the
assessments of an earlier staff report. In the light of all the fore-
there was infringement of
going the applicant claims that
Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and all the
implementing provisions, infringement of Article 12a of those
Staff Regulations, which refers to psychological harassment,
manifest error of assessment as regards the facts, non-existent
or otherwise insufficient reasons for the acts challenged, misuse
of powers on the part of the Commission and infringement of
the principle of fair and equal treatment of staff and the prin-
ciple of sound administration.