Case F-126/05: Action brought on  22 December 2005  — Borbély v Commission
Date: 2006-03-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, allowances and expenses, regulations for civil servants

C 60/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2006

Form of order sought

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

— annul the decision adopted on 7 September 2005 by the
appointing authority in response to the complaint lodged
by Mr Jean-Marc Bracke (No R/570/05) and the subsequent
measures adopted as a consequence of that decision;

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

— in so far as necessary, annul the Commission's decision of 7
October 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint (No R/
488/05);

— order the defendant to pay compensation of EUR 72 000
for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained by
the applicant
the irregularities or
repeated service-related faults committed by the Commis-
sion in the context of the 1998 and 1999 promotion exer-
cises;

in consequence of

Pleas in law and main arguments

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

The applicant, who was a successful candidate in competition
COM/PC/04, contests the legality of the appointing authority's
decision not to take him on as a probationary official on the
the seniority requirements
fulfil
ground that he does not
included among the eligibility conditions for the abovemen-
tioned competition.

The applicant contends that the contested decision infringes
Article 27 of the Staff Regulations in that, for no valid reason,
it denies some of the candidates access to the vacant post. He
also alleges breach of the principle of non-discrimination, of
the principle of sound administration, of the principle of inde-
pendence of the selection board and of the principle of the
protection of legitimate expectations. Finally, he contends that
the provision in the vacancy notice on which the abovemen-
tioned decision was based, namely paragraph III .1, is illegal,
since it is in breach of the principle of non-discrimination and
should therefore be declared inoperative, pursuant to Article
241 EC.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission's decisions rejecting the
request and the complaint which he had submitted in order to
obtain compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage caused to him by the Commission's conduct in the
context of the 1998 and 1999 promotion exercises. In order to
contest the measures taken by the Commission in respect of
him, the applicant had initiated four pre-contentious proce-
dures and four contentious procedures, which culminated in
either the withdrawal or the annulment of those measures.

The pecuniary damage follows from the fact that, in order to
ensure that his interests were fully defended in the context of
the pre-contentious procedures, the applicant was required to
consult a legal adviser. The non-pecuniary damage follows
from the situation of uncertainty in which the applicant found
himself for a number of years and also from his loss of confi-
dence in the institution.

Action brought on 19 December 2005 — Tsarnavas v
Commission

(Case F-125/05)

(2006/C 60/100)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vassilios Tsarnavas (Athens, Greece) (represented by:
N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the appointing authority's decision of 1 April 2005
rejecting the applicant's request under Article 90(1) of the
Staff Regulations (Request No D/007/05);

Action brought on 22 December 2005 — Borbély v
Commission

(Case F-126/05)

(2006/C 60/101)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Andrea Borbély (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
R. Stötzel, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/55

Form of order sought

Action brought on 21 December 2005 — Nanbru v Euro-
pean Parliament

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission of 30
September 2005 in so far as it refuses to grant the applicant
the daily subsistence allowance provided for in Article
10(1) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of
the European Communities,
the installation allowance
provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of
Annex VII of the Staff Regulations and reimbursement of
travel expenses on taking up her appointment as provided
for in Article 7(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations;

— order the European Commission to pay the applicant the
daily subsistence allowance, the installation allowance and
the travel expenses on taking up her appointment, together
with interest
from the dates on which those amounts
became payable pursuant to Annex VII of the Staff Regula-
tions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, formally an official of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs in Budapest, Hungary, seconded for Diplomatic Service
to the Permanent Representation on Hungary to the EU in
Brussels for a period of four years, was appointed as proba-
tionary official of the Commission and posted in Brussels.

She applied in March 2005 for the installation allowance, reim-
bursement of the travel expenses payable on taking up her
appointment and the daily subsistence allowance. The Commis-
sion rejected that request.

The applicant claims that, while on secondment, she continued
to be remunerated by her Hungarian employer and maintained
her residence and her financial interests in Hungary. Moreover,
in Brussels she used to live in a furnished apartment relied by
her employer.

She argues that the case-law (1) has already established that an
official is entitled to the above-mentioned reimbursement and
allowances in a situation where the place of appointment is the
one on which the official resided immediately prior to being
appointed because of a secondment.

(1) Case T-137/95 Mozzaglia v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-619

and II-1657.

(Case F-127/05)

(2006/C 60/102)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Nicole-Kiwi Nanbru (Brussels, Belgium) (represented
by: G. Vandersanden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the European Parliament, notified to
the applicant on 3 May 2005, giving new notification of
her retirement pension rights as from 1 January 2005;

— Restore the applicant to her pension rights as stated by
continuous, consistent and checked figures supplied in
writing (mails or notes) and confirmed orally by the DG
Personnel of
the European Parliament, awarding her a
differential sum of EUR 634.40 per month until the expiry
of her retirement pension;

— Compensate for the non-material damage suffered by the
ex aequo et bono, at

applicant, provisionally assessed,
EUR 250 000.

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a temporary servant of the European Parliament
in retirement since 1 January 2005, challenges the decision of
that institution to reduce the amount of her pension from what
had been indicated to her at the time when she was considering
whether it was appropriate to retire and, if appropriate, request
transfer
to the Community system of her pension rights
acquired in Belgium.