Case T-393/05: Action brought on  17 October 2005  — Pickering v Commission
Date: 2006-01-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, capital transfer, equal treatment, pay, pension scheme, regulations for civil servants

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.