Case T-401/05: Action brought on  2 November 2005  — Toth v Commission
Date: 2006-01-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, anti-discriminatory measure, personnel administration, professional career, recruitment, regulations for civil servants, servant (EU), work contract

28.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/15

Action brought on 2 November 2005 — T v Commission

concerning annual
misuse of powers.

leave, a manifest error of assessment and

(Case T-400/05)

(2006/C 22/29)

Language of the case: French

The applicant also claims that she should be compensated for
both the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss that she allegedly
incurred as a result of the defendant's actions.

Parties

Action brought on 2 November 2005 — Toth v Commis-
sion

Applicant: T (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues
and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

— annul, as far as necessary, the decision of 20 July 2005 by
which the Commission rejected the applicant's complaints
lodged on 10 February 2005 and 21 March 2005 against
the Commission's decision concerning the loss of her days
of leave for 2004 and against the Commission's decision to
consider the applicant's absences from 15 November 2004
to be improper;

— establish the liability of the European Community as a

result of the contested decision;

(Case T-401/05)

(2006/C 22/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gergely Toth (Besozzo,
Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyer)

Italy)

(represented by: S.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— award the applicant damages for the harm suffered, in an

amount of EUR 58 395.39;

Forms of order sought

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

The applicant claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a former Commission official, in retirement
since 1 September 2005. By her action, she contests the defen-
dant's decision to consider some of her absences in 2004 to be
improper and to be set against her annual leave entitlement
and her remuneration. In support of her action she alleges
infringement of the duty to give reasons, infringement of the
principles of equal treatment and sound administration and the
duty to have regard for the interests of officials.

The applicant also alleges infringement of Article 59 of the
Staff Regulations in so far as she has medical certificates for the
periods of absence at issue. In addition, she alleges infringement
of Article 57 of the Staff Regulations and Annex V thereto

— annul the Commission's decision of 20 July 2005 rejecting
the applicant's complaint of 15 April 2005, taken together
with the contract of employment signed by the applicant
on 17 January 2005 in so far as it fixes his grade in accord-
ance with Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regula-
tions and his step pursuant to the current Article 32 of the
Staff Regulations;

— inform the Commission as to the effects of the annulment
of the contested decision and, in particular, the reclassifica-
tion of the applicant in grade A*9 with retroactive effect;

— in the alternative, order the Commission to compensate the
harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the fact that he
was not classified in grade A*9 from 17 January 2005;

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

C 22/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.1.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

The applicant responded to a call for tenders issued by the
Commission to recruit an administrator in career bracket A8/
A5, published on 25 July 2003. Having been chosen he
entered into a contract, dated 17 January 2005, as a member
of temporary staff with the Commission in which his grade
was fixed at A*6.

By his action, the applicant challenges his grading by submit-
ting, primarily, that, in the present case, Article 12 of Annex
XIII to the Staff Regulations is inapplicable on the ground that
that disposition is applicable only to officials and not
to
members of temporary staff. In the alternative, he raises a plea
of illegality by submitting that the application of that provision
to him is contrary to the principle of equal treatment of the
successful candidates in calls for tenders published before 1
May 2004 and constitutes discrimination on the ground of
nationality and an infringement of the freedom of movement
for workers, since nationals of the new Member States are
inevitably appointed under less favourable provisions.

the same duties and infringement of

The applicant also alleges discrimination between staff carrying
out
the principle of
equivalence between the nature of duties and remuneration. In
addition, he submits that Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff
Regulations is contrary to Article 31 of the Staff Regulations
and adversely affects his legitimate expectations, the principle
of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the
interests of officials.

The applicant also claims that he should be compensated for
both the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage that he allegedly
incurred.

Action brought on 3 November 2005 — Italian Republic v
Commission

(Case T-402/05)

(2006/C 22/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant(s): Italian Republic (represented by: Danilo Del Gaizo,
Avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

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

— annul the note of 24 August 2005, No. 08799 of the Euro-
pean Commission, Directorate-General Regional Policy —
Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy,
Malta and the Netherlands, concerning payments by the
European Commission different from the amount requested
(Ref. Programma POR Campania 2000-2006, No. CCI
1999 IT 16 1 PO 007);

— annul the note of 30 August 2005, No. 08978 of the Euro-
pean Commission, Directorate-General Regional Policy —
Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy,
Malta and the Netherlands, concerning payments by the
European Commission different from the amount requested
(Ref. Programma DOCUP Lombardia 2000-2006, No. CCI
2000 IT 16 2 DO 014);

— annul the note of 19 September 2005, No. 09753 of the
European Commission, Directorate-General Regional Policy
— Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary,
Italy, Malta and the Netherlands, concerning payments by
the European Commission different
from the amount
requested (Ref. Programma DOCUP Ob.2 Lazio 2000-2006,
No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 009);

— annul the note of 23 September 2005, No. 09985 of the
European Commission, Directorate-General Regional Policy
— Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary,
Italy, Malta and the Netherlands, concerning payments by
from the amount
the European Commission different
requested (Ref. Programma DOCUP Toscana Ob.2, No CCI
2000 IT 16 2 PO 001);

— annul the note of 11 October 2005, No. 10654 of the
European Commission, Directorate-General Regional Policy
— Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary,
Italy, Malta and the Netherlands, concerning payments by
from the amount
the European Commission different
requested (Ref. Programma DOCUP Piemonte, No CCI
2000 IT 16 2 DO 007);

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case
T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission (1).

(1) OJ C 262 of 23. 10. 2004, p. 55.