Case F-127/05: Action brought on  21 December 2005  — Nanbru v European Parliament
Date: 2006-03-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action by staff, pension scheme

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.

C 60/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2006

Concerning the application for annulment, the applicant argues
that, even if it is possible for an administrative authority to
replace an illegal decision, in this case the new decision fixing
her pension rights at a lower level than previously anticipated
was not taken within a reasonable time. In those circumstances,
the confidence she might legitimately have as to the amount of
her pension had been breached.

She argues that the non-material damage arises from the whole
of the faults committed by the European Parliament throughout
the case.

applied, pending the removal of weightings by Council Regu-
lation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004
amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European
Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other
servants of
in so far as those
conditions are based on a new calculation of ‘pension’ weight-
ings which is no longer based on the capital city but on the
average cost of living in the Member State where the pensioner
proves that he has established his principal residence.

the European Communities,

In support of their contentions, the applicants claim, first, that
the abovementioned regulation is based on an incorrect state-
ment of reasons, in so far as neither the increased integration
of the Community, nor freedom of movement and of residence
nor the difficulty in verifying pensioners' actual place of resi-
dence can serve as a basis for the transitional regime at issue.

Action brought on 20 December 2005 — Claude Adolf
and Others v Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-128/05)

(2006/C 60/103)

Language of the case: French

Next, the applicants allege infringement in this case of the prin-
ciples of equal
retroactivity of
acquired rights and protection of legitimate expectations.

legal certainty,

treatment,

Action brought on 23 December 2005 — Merglova v
Commission

Parties

Applicant(s): Claude Adolf and Others (represented by: L. Levi
and G Vandersanden, lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-129/05)

(2006/C 60/104)

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

Parties

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

— declare the action admissible and well founded, including

the objection of illegality contained in it;

— consequently, annul the applicants' pension statements for
March 2005, so as to result
in the application of a
weighting for the capital of the country of residence or, at
least, of a weighting such as to reflect adequately the differ-
ences in the cost of living as between the places where the
applicants are deemed to incur their expenditure and there-
fore to give effect to the principle of equivalence;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

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

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare the action admissible;

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Annul the Commission's decision of 15 September 2005

rejecting the applicant's complaint;

The applicants in this case are all officials who retired before 1
May 2004. They object to the transitional conditions being

— Pronounce the reclassification of the applicant in Grade C3

or C2, with retrospective effect from 1 May 2004;