Case F-23/06: Action brought on  3 March 2006  — Abad-Villanueva and Others v Commission
Date: 2006-03-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, appointment of staff, competition (EU), personnel administration, professional career, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

C 108/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.5.2006

— complete reinstatement of the applicant's career with effect
retrospective to the date of his being classified in the grade
and step thus corrected, including the payment of default
interest;

— an order that the Commission of the European Commu-

nities should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 7 November 2003 the Commission published a notice of
vacancy for a director's post at Grade A2, pursuant to Article
29(2) of the Staff Regulations. The applicant, a head of unit in
Grade 3, step 7, occupying that post as a locum tenens,
decided to apply for it.

By decision of 18 May 2005 he was appointed to the vacant
post and classified in Grade A*14, step 2, the date on which
that was to take effect being fixed at 16 September 2004.

In his action the applicant argues that this classification is
lower than Grade 2, now A*15, which appeared in the notice
of vacancy. What is more, the classification is also lower than
that enjoyed by the applicant before his appointment to the
director's post, while he was head of unit. That result is not
consistent with the fact that a director's post entails higher
duties and responsibilities.

The applicant considers that his classification is contrary to
Articles 2(1) and 5 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations. More
than one legal principle has also been infringed: the principle
of non-discrimination, the principle of correspondence of grade
to post, set out in Article 7(1) as an essential principle guaran-
teeing equal
legal
certainty and protection of legitimate expectations, and the
principles of good administration and the duty to have regard
to the interests of officials. In addition, there is an infringement
of the right to reasonable career prospects and of the interests
of the service.

treatment of officials,

the principles of

In the alternative, the applicant claims that Article 12(3) of
Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful.

Form of order sought

— annul the annul the explicit decision of 14 November 2005
whereby the European Parliament refused to afford the
applicants assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regula-
tions;

— order the European Parliament to make good all the loss

thereby sustained by the applicants;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs;

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, who are all officials or other servants of the
European Parliament, had sought to have their pension rights
acquired in Belgium transferred to the Community system, in
accordance with the provisions of a Belgian law enacted in
1991. In 2003 Belgium enacted a new law which, in the appli-
cants' submission, provides more favourable conditions for new
transfers of that type. As the applicants had already transferred
their rights, however, they were unable to take advantage of
the provisions of the Law of 2003.

The applicants therefore submitted a request seeking to obtain
the assistance provided for in Article 24 of the Staff Regula-
tions. The European Parliament, which had no intention of
assisting its officials and temporary servants to secure those
transfers, rejected their request by decision of 14 November
2005.

By their action, the applicants contest that decision, which they
treat as a refusal to afford assistance, in breach of Article 24 of
the Staff Regulations. In addition to that article, they rely in
support of their claims on a breach of the duty to have regard
to the welfare of the staff, of the principle of non-discrimina-
tion, of the prohibition of arbitrary process, of the obligation
to state reasons, of legitimate expectations and of the rule
‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’ and on a misuse of powers.

Action brought on 6 March 2006 — Vienne and Others v
European Parliament

(Case F-22/06)

(2006/C 108/59)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 3 March 2006 — Abad-Villanueva and
Others v Commission

(Case F-23/06)

(2006/C 108/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Philippe Vienne (Bascharage, Luxembourg) and
Others (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

Applicants: Roberto Abad-Villanueva and Others (represented
by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/33

The Tribunal is asked to

Action brought on 10 March 2006 — Abarca Montiel and
Others v Commission

— annul the decisions notifying the applicants of their change
of category,
in so far as those decisions allocate a grade
lower than that which should have been obtained under the
provisions of the Staff Regulations, maintain the mulitiplier
coefficient and cancel the applicants' promotion points;

(Case F-24/06)

(2006/C 108/61)

Language of the case: French

— declare that Article 12 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regula-

tions is unlawful;

Parties

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Applicants: Sabrina Abarca Montiel and Others (represented by:
L. Vogel, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

The applicants were all successful candidates in internal compe-
titions for change of category COM/PA/04 and COM/PB/04, in
respect of which notices were published before the date on
which the new Staff Regulations entered into force. After that
date, they were appointed by the defendant to a higher cate-
gory, but with the same grade, step and multiplier coefficient
as before. By contrast, their promotion points were reset at
zero.

In their application, the applicants submit that the appointment
decisions infringe Articles 31 and 62 of the Staff Regulations
and Article 2(1) and (2) and Article 5(2) of Annex XIII thereto,
inasmuch as under those provisions they should have obtained
a better grading. The defendant has thus infringed the right of
all officials to be recruited to the grade stated in the competi-
tion notice, and has discriminated against the applicants as
compared with the successful candidates in other competitions
giving access to the same categories.

Furthermore, the applicants submit that there is no legal basis
which permits the defendant to continue to apply to them the
multiplier coefficients laid down by their former categories or
to deprive them of the promotion points they have in their
‘rucksacks’.

Finally, according to the applicants, the contested decisions also
infringe the principles of the protection of legitimate expecta-
tions, the protection of acquired rights and equal treatment.

— Annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to
conclude contracts of employment (AACC) of 21 November
2005 rejecting the complaints made by the applicants on
various dates between 26 July 2005 and 17 August 2005,
criticising the administrative decisions which fixed the
grading and remuneration of each of the applicants and
also criticising Article 7 of the decision adopted by the
College of Commissioners on 27 April 2005 containing the
‘General
transitional
measures applicable to staff employed by the Office for
Infrastructure in Brussels in the day nurseries and kinder-
gartens in Brussels’ (GIP) and Annexes I and II to that deci-
sion;

implementing provisions

the

for

— also,

in so far as necessary, annulment of the decisions
abovementioned complaints were

against which the
directed;

— an order that the Commission of the European Commu-

nities is to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, who are currently contract staff working in the
day nurseries and kindergartens in Brussels, were already
performing the same work under employment contracts
subject to Belgian law before they were appointed as contract
staff. They dispute their grading and their remuneration fixed
by the defendant on their appointment as contract staff.

In the first plea in law of their application, the applicants
submit that by application of the GIP and other provisions
relating to the Commission's contract staff, they should have
been graded in function group III instead of in function group
II, in view of their qualifications and their length of service.

In the second plea in law, the applicants complain, inter alia,
that they have not benefited from the minimum remuneration
laid down in Article 6 of the GIP.