Case T-355/05: Action brought on  12 September 2005  — Vandaele v Commission
Date: 2005-12-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, action by staff, appointment of staff, personnel administration, regulations for civil servants, servant (EU)

10.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/13

Action brought on 12 September 2005 — Vandaele v
Commission

Lastly,
the applicant alleges infringement of her legitimate
expectation that she will be recruited at Grade B2 or B3
without unjustified delay.

(Case T-355/05)

(2005/C 315/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Action brought on 26 September 2005 — Franklin and
Others v Commission

Applicant(s): Vandaele
S.Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

(Bertem, Belgium)

(represented by:

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Parties

(Case T-359/05)

(2005/C 315/25)

Language of the case: French

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

— annul the decision appointing the applicant a member of
the temporary staff of the European Communities in so far
as it fixes her recruitment grade in accordance with Article
2 of the decision of 28 April 2004 on the engagement of
temporary staff.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant took part in selection procedure OLAF/T/B/02
initiated by the Commission to fill temporary staff positions at
Grade B in the Anti-fraud Office. By letter of 28 October 2002,
she was informed that her name had been included on the list
of suitable candidates. However, she did not begin working for
the Commission, for OLAF, until 1 September 2004, although
the procedure for her engagement had begun at the end of
2003. Her contract, signed on 3 November 2004, classified her
at Grade B*4, in accordance with the Commission's decision of
28 April 2004 on the engagement of temporary staff, under
which temporary personnel are engaged at Grade A*8 or B*4.

By her action, the applicant challenges her classification. She
submits that the Commission, by its decision of 28 April 2004,
amended the call for candidatures to Category B, where the
minimum grade, at the time of that call's publication, was
Grade B5 (renamed B*5 under the new Staff Regulations). Such
an amendment, which occurred after the list of successful
candidates had been drawn up, infringes Article 29(1) of the
Staff Regulations and the third paragraph of Article 10 of the
Conditions of employment of other servants of the European
Communities, as well as the applicant's prospects of being
recruited to one of the vacant posts intended to be filled by
successful candidates in the selection procedure to which she
had been admitted.

In addition, the applicant claims infringement of the principle
of equal treatment to the extent that successful candidates in
the same procedure who were recruited prior to 1 May 2004,
and classified in accordance with the previous rules, were clas-
sified at higher grades and benefit from better conditions for
career progress.

Applicant(s): Franklin and Others (Sorée, Belgium) (represented
by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

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

— annul the implied decision refusing assistance under Article

24 of the Staff Regulations;

— order the Commission to pay collective compensation for

the damage suffered by the applicants as a result;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, all Commission officials or other servants, had
applied for their pension rights acquired in Belgium to be
transferred to the Community scheme, in accordance with the
provisions of a Belgian law adopted in 1991. In 2003, Belgium
adopted a new law which, according to the applicants,
prescribes more advantageous conditions for new transfers of
that type. However, the applicants, having already transferred
their rights, could not use the provisions of the 2003 law.

Following a meeting to provide information, which took place
on 9 December 2004, the applicants learned that the Commis-
sion did not propose to help its officials and temporary agents
to obtain the transfer which was most satisfactory for them.

By their action,
they challenge that Commission decision,
which they classify as a refusal of assistance in breach of
Article 24 of the Staff Regulations. In addition to that article,
they also rely in support of their action on infringement of the
principle of non-discrimination, the prohibition on arbitrary
conduct, the obligation to give reasons, the principle of legiti-
mate expectations and the rule 'patere legem quam ipse fecisti',
and an abuse of powers.