Case F-129/05: Action brought on  23 December 2005  — Merglova v Commission
Date: 2006-03-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, professional career, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

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;

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/57

— In the alternative, order the Commission to recognise the
applicant as eligible for promotion to Grade C3 or C2 in
the next promotions year and order the Commission to
make compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant
through not having been classed in Grade C2 or C3 as
from 1 May 2004;

— In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official recruited after the reform
of the Staff Regulations but entered on the reserve list of a
competition published before that reform, pleads unlawfulness
of Article 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, pursuant to
which she was classed in Grade C1, Step 2.

In support of her objection of illegality, the applicant claims
infringement of the principle of equivalence between the old
and the new career structure, laid down by Article 6 of the
Staff Regulations. The applicant argues that her career has been
slowed by her being classed in Grade C1.

The applicant also considers that she has been the victim of an
infringement of the principle of equal treatment in relation to
her colleagues in Grade C4 or C5 who were promoted before 1
May 2004.

the applicant argues infringement of

Finally,
the legitimate
expectation she was given that the new career structure would
not involve deterioration of her working conditions, infringe-
ment of her acquired rights, and misuse of powers.

Action brought on 31 December 2005 — Soares v
Commission

(Case F-130/05)

(2006/C 60/105)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Carlos Alberto Soares (Brussels, Belgium) (represented
by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Commission's decision of 19 September 2005,
rejecting the applicant's request seeking reconstitution of
his career

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant makes a single plea in
law claiming infringement of the principles of sound manage-
ment, sound administration and equal treatment, and of Article
45 of the Staff Regulations, in the version in force before 1
May 2004.

The applicant accuses the Commission of holding back his
career by not drawing up staff reports for the promotion years
1995 to 2000 and by not taking all measures capable of
repairing the damage that the applicant claims to have suffered
by reason of the absence of those staff reports.