Case T-388/05: Action brought on  20 October 2005  — Grünheid v Commission
Date: 2006-01-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, equal treatment, personnel administration, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

C 10/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.1.2006

Action brought on 20 October 2005 — Grünheid v
Commission

Action brought on 20 October 2005 — Ole Eistrup v
European Parliament

(Case T-388/05)

(2006/C 10/51)

(Case T-389/05)

(2006/C 10/52)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sabine Grünheid (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by:
E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant(s): Ole Eistrup (Knebel, Denmark) (represented by: S.
E. Hjelmborg, advokat)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant(s): European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 6 October 2004, notified on 18
inasmuch as it makes mention of the
November 2004,
applicant's classification at grade A*8, and annul all conse-
cutive and/or related measures;

— annul the corrected decision of 6 July 2005, notified on 12
July 2005, rejecting the applicant's complaint, which was
registered on 18 February 2005 under reference R/162/05;

Form of order sought

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

— annul the defendant's decision of 13 December 2004 and

the defendant's reply of 12 July 2005;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant compensation in
the amount of EUR 203 357 for lost earnings in the period
1 June 1998 to 1 September 2002, together with interest;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 200 000 for

non-material damage, together with interest;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant, recruited as an official by the
Commission in 2003, disputes her definitive classification at
former grade A7, now grade A*8. She takes the view that, in
the light of her professional experience acquired before her
recruitment, allegedly of more than 12 years, she should have
been classified at grade A6, now grade A*10.

In support of her action, the applicant alleges breach of Article
31(2) of the Staff Regulations, in the version in force before 1
May 2004, of the decisions of the Commission concerning the
criteria applicable to appointment to a grade, of the administra-
tive guide relating to the classification of new officials, and a
manifest error of assessment. In addition, she alleges breach of
the principle of equal treatment, since in the past the Commis-
sion has classified at the higher grade officials having qualities
inferior or equal to those of the applicant. Finally, the applicant
alleges breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and
the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials.

The applicant, who is employed in the Parliament's Danish
language translation division, wished to be reinstated in his
post after taking leave on personal grounds from 1 August
1992 to 31 July 1996. This only became possible however
from 1 October 2002, since the Parliament was not able to
identify an available post corresponding to the applicant's cate-
gory and qualifications before that date.

In support of his application the applicant states that he has
fulfilled his obligation to mitigate his loss in connection with
his claim for reimbursement of lost earnings.

The applicant also claims that the defendant's alleged unlawful
handling of the matter put the applicant in a state of uncer-
tainty and anxiety, and that the defendant's conduct constitutes
a clear breach of the applicant's rights and the confidence
which every citizen must have in the Community's legal
system.