Case T-338/05: Action brought on  9 September 2005  — Raymond Claudel v Court of Auditors
Date: 2005-11-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Court of Auditors, European official, action by staff, personnel administration, regulations for civil servants

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/27

Action brought on 5 September 2005 — De Soeten v
Council

Action brought on 9 September 2005 — Raymond
Claudel v Court of Auditors

(Case T-336/05)

(2005/C 296/58)

Language of the case: French

(Case T-338/05)

(2005/C 296/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant(s): Henders De Soeten (The Hague, Netherlands)
(represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal,
lawyers)

Applicant(s): Raymond Claudel (Merl, Luxembourg) (represented
by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant(s): Council of the European Union

Defendant(s): Court of Auditors

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

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

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

— annul the Council's decision rejecting the applicant's request
for early retirement without any reduction in her pension
rights;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

to the Staff Regulations, which enables

The applicant is a former official of the Council, who has been
in retirement since 1 July 2004. She submitted an application
for entitlement to the measure referred to in Article 9(2) of
Annex VIII
the
Appointing Authority, in the interests of the service and on the
basis of objective criteria and transparent procedures intro-
implementing provisions, not to
duced by means of general
apply the reduction in pension provided for in Article 9(1)(b)
to officials leaving the service before the age of 63.

By her action, the applicant contests the decision refusing to
grant her that benefit. She submits that one of the candidates
who qualified for that measure was assigned to the same
department. The applicant therefore takes the view that the
requirements of the service were the same in both cases and
asserts that the above mentioned article and the general imple-
menting provisions adopted by the Council have been
infringed, since both her length of service and her merits were
greater than those of the other candidate.

In addition, the applicant alleges that the Council committed a
manifest error of assessment in so far as it held that the assess-
ment of the criterion of the requirements of the service meant
that regard should be had to the individual qualities of officials.

of Auditors

— annul paragraph 17(d) of the decision of the European
of 11 November 2004 (DEC
Court
183/04/DEF), which does not acknowledge that the appli-
cant carried out the duties of Head of Unit on 30 April
2004;

— award damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm
evaluated on an equitable basis at EUR 5 000, subject to an
increase during the proceedings;

— order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an official at the Court of Auditors in charge
of the external relations service. By his action, he disputes the
decision of the Court of Auditors, in so far as it does not recog-
nise that he exercises the duties of Head of Unit and, accord-
ingly, does not recognise that he is entitled to the bonus
provided for in Article 44 of the Staff Regulations, as amended
after 1 May 2004.

In support of his action, the applicant claims that there has
been a breach of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations and of
Article 7 of Annex XIII thereto, and also a manifest error of
assessment in the description of his post. He also claims that
there has been a breach of the duty to state reasons, of the
principle of equal t4eatment, of the duty to have regard for the
welfare of officials and also of the principle of sound adminis-
tration. The applicant also claims damages for the harm which
he alleges to have been sustained.