Case T-394/05: Action brought on  17 October 2005  — Valero Jordana v Commission
Date: 2006-01-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, personnel administration, promotion, staff assessment

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/27

Action brought on 17 October 2005 — Pickering v
Commission

(Case T-393/05)

(2006/C 10/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Stephen Pickering (La Hulpe, Belgium) (represented
by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

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

— Declare void the applicant's wage slips for the months of
December 2004, January 2005 and February 2005, and all
the subsequent wage slips, to the extent that they apply the
illegal provisions of Regulation No 723/2004 of 22 March
2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the
European Communities, and Regulation No 856/2004
fixing the new correction coefficients and Regulation No
31/2005 adjusting them,

— As far as is necessary, annul the decision of the appointing
authority of 4 July 2005, rejecting the applicant's complaint
(R/299/05),

— Order the defendant to pay all the costs in the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

is a national of

The applicant, a Commission official,
the
United Kingdom. Before the entry into force of Regulation No
723/2004 (1) amending the Staff Regulations,
the applicant
regularly made use of the possibility of transferring part of his
remuneration to his country of origin. In accordance with the
rules in force, the part transferred was increased by an amount
resulting from the application of a ‘correction coefficient’,
which was supposed to reflect the difference between the cost
of living in the country of employment and in that of origin.

The new Staff Regulations lay down strict conditions for such
transfers, in contrast to what was formerly the case. Moreover,
the ‘correction coefficient’ applicable is no longer equal to that
applicable to the remuneration of officials employed in the
country to which the transfer is made. The latter benefit from a
coefficient calculated on the basis of the cost of living in the
country's capital, while the coefficient applicable to the trans-
fers is calculated on the basis of the average cost of living in
the country to which the transfer is made. Lastly, the new
provisions abolish the application of the ‘correction coefficient’
to pensions.

In support of his action, the applicant submits a plea of the
it
illegality of Regulation No 723/2004 to the extent

that

concerns the transfer of remuneration to the country of origin,
alleging, firstly, that the grounds on which that regulation is
based are misconceived. Next, he alleges a breach of the prin-
ciple of equal treatment, to the extent that the new system
provides for the application of a different coefficient to officials
carrying out their activities in the country to which the transfer
is made. The applicant also alleges a breach of the principles of
legitimate expectations, acquired rights and legal certainty, and
of the duty to have regard for the interests of officials.

As regards the pensions scheme, in addition to the three pleas
above, the applicant pleads that it infringes the former officials'
freedom of establishment, to the extent that it favours their
establishment, after their employment has ceased, in a country
with a lower cost of living.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004,
amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Commu-
nities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the
European Communities, OJ L 124 of 27.4.2002, p. 1.

Action brought on 17 October 2005 — Valero Jordana v
Commission

(Case T-394/05)

(2006/C 10/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gregorio Valero Jordana (Brussels, Belgium) (repre-
sented by: M. Merola and I. van Schendel, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

— annul:

(a) the decision of the Director General of the Legal Service
not to award him, for the 2004 promotion exercise,
the General
priority points under Article 5(2)(a) of
Implementing Provisions of Article 45 of
the Staff
Regulations, as is apparent from the Sysper 2 compu-
terised system, confirmed by the Appointing Authority's
decision of 16 November 2004 rejecting the applicant's
appeal lodged on 4 October 2004.

C 10/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.1.2006

(b) the award, in the 2004 promotion exercise, of points
awarded on appeal for reasons other than a finding of
merit in that period, priority points for work in the
the institution and transitional priority
interest of
points;

(c) as regards the points in (b), the merit list of officials in
Grade A5 for promotion exercise 2004, published in
Administrative Notices No 114-2004 of 20 September
2004 and No 119-2004 of 27 September 2004, and
the list of officials promoted to Grade A4 under the
2004 promotion exercise, published in Administrative
Notice No 130-2004 of 30 November 2004; and the
decision not to enter the applicant on those lists;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant advances similar pleas to
those advanced in Case T-385/04 (1).

(1) OJ C 284, 20.11.2004, p. 27.

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant fair compensation
of EUR 35 000, together with interest for late payment at
the rate of 7 % from 2 August 2005;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a member of the defendant's staff since 2001,
resigned on 2 August 2005 in order to receive the pecuniary
benefits set out under Regulation No 1111/2005 for staff
In her
members who had resigned before 4 August 2005.
action, the applicant argues that the defendant rejected her
application for indemnities to which she was entitled, and for
the documents which she needed to receive social protection in
her country of residence, and claims annulment of that decision
of refusal and compensation for the damage allegedly suffered.

In support of her action, she alleges infringement of the second
subparagraph of Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1860/76 as
amended by Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1111/2005, infrin-
gement of Article 28a of the Conditions of Employment of
Other Servants of the European Communities, of the provisions
of Commission Regulation 91/88 of 13 January 1988, and of
her legitimate expectations.

Action brought on 7 November 2005 — Tesoka v Euro-
pean Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
Working Conditions

Action brought on 21 October 2005 — Wils v European
Parliament

(Case T-398/05)

(2006/C 10/55)

(Case T-399/05)

(2006/C 10/56)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sabrina Tesoka (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by:
J.-L. Fagnart, lawyer)

Applicant: Dieter Wils (Altrier, Luxembourg)
G. Vandersanden and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

(represented by:

Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living
and Working Conditions

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the explicit decision of rejection of 14 October 2005

— Rule that the applicant may receive all the allowances and
benefits which she can claim by reason of her resignation
of 2 August 2005 pursuant to the second subparagraph of
Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1860/76 amended by
Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1111/2005 of 24 June
2005;

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the applicant's salary slip for January 2005 with
retroactive effect from 1 July 2004, insofar as it increases
the rate of contribution to the pension scheme to 9.75 %,
and order repayment to the applicant of the percentage of
the contribution corresponding to the increase in rate.
Accordingly — in the earlier salary slips — restore the rate
of contribution to the level set before 1 July 2004;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.