Case T-334/05: Action brought on 29 August 2005 — Wineke Neirinck v Commission
Date: 2005-11-12
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, personnel administration, servant (EU)

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.

C 281/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.11.2005

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

The applicant
first of all worked in the Commission as a
seconded national expert from 1 May 1998 to 30 April 2001,
then as a member of the temporary staff under a contract
which expired on 30 April 2004.

From October 2003 the applicant took steps to obtain a new
contract as a member of the temporary staff with effect from 1
May 2004. She claims that she was offered a post in the Inves-
tigatory and Disciplinary Office but that finally she was not
recruited by reason of fault on the part of the Commission's
staff. She alleges that DG ADMIN refused to recruit her on the
basis that she had already served the maximum period of six
years. According to the applicant that interpretation is erro-
neous as her first three years in the Commission as a seconded
national expert should not have been taken into account. She
submits that the administration finally admitted its error but, in
the meantime, the post which had been offered to her had
already disappeared as a result of restructuring.

the applicant seeks compensation for

By her action,
the
damage she allegedly suffered. She alleges a breach of the
legal certainty,
general principles of
good faith,
‘patere
legem quam ipse fecisti legem’, sound administration, the right
to be heard, the duty to have regard to the interests of the offi-
cial and the interests of the service.

the duty to state reasons,

legitimate expectations,

transparency,

Action brought on 13 September 2005 — Hellenic
Republic v Commission

(Case T-344/05)

(2005/C 281/56)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties:

Applicant(s): Hellenic Republic (represented by: Ioannis Khalkias,
Eleni Svolopoulou)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

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

— annul or amend the contested decision of the Commission
of 15 July 2005 refusing the request for Community finan-
cing of certain expenditure incurred by the Member States
under
the European Agricultural and Guidance Fund
(EAGGF), Guarantee Section; (1)

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision the Commission,
in clearing the
accounts under Regulation (EEC) No 729/70, (2) excluded from
Community financing various expenditure incurred by the
Hellenic Republic in the animal premia — extensification, fruit
and vegetables and arable crops sectors.

The applicant seeks annulment of that decision, maintaining in
principle that the entire clearance of accounts procedure is
invalid because Article 7 of Regulation No 1258/1999, (3) in
conjunction with Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/1995, (4)
was infringed by reason of the fact that the consultation and
bilateral contacts between the applicant and the Commission
did not include the specific evaluation of the expenditure to be
refused, while in addition the expenditure excluded was effected
prior to the 24 months preceding the Commission's written
communication. According to the applicant, the period of 24
months
than the Commission
considers.

commences much later

As regards the correction of 100 % in respect of the premium
for extensification,
the applicant disputes the Commission's
assessment of the factual circumstances and claims that it erred
as to the facts and gave an inadequate statement of reasons for
the contested decision. The applicant considers, moreover, that
the imposition of a correction at the rate of 100 % contravenes
the guidelines in Commission document VI/5330/97/23.12.97,
is unjustified and clearly disproportionate, and goes beyond the
bounds of proper use of the Commission's discretion.

As regards the correction in the arable crops sector, the appli-
cant disputes the Commission's finding that there was an infrin-
gement of Regulation No 3508/1992, (5) in connection with
the identification of agricultural parcels. It also considers that it
complied fully with the conditions in Article 15 of Regulation
No 2419/2001 (6) as regards administrative and on-the-spot
checks. In addition, it cites lack of reasoning and infringement
of the principle of proportionality.