Case F-31/06: Action brought on  13 March 2006  — Perez-Minayo Barroso and Pino v Commission
Date: 2006-03-13
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, appointment of staff, competition (EU), equal treatment, personnel administration, professional career

C 131/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Action brought on 13 March 2006 — Hanot v Commis-
sion

(Case F-30/06)

(2006/C 131/91)

Language of the case: French

Parties

is set at
competition or in competitions at the same level
different
recruitment occurs
levels depending on whether
before or after the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations.
On the other hand, officials who did not pass the competition
for change of category are at an advantage, in that they retain
their promotion points while the applicant's ‘rucksack’ was re-
set at zero.

Lastly, according to the applicant, the contested decisions are
contrary to the principle of the protection of legitimate expec-
tations, in so far as she was entitled to expect to be appointed
at the grade given in the competition notice.

Applicant: Cécile Hanot
sented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen,
lawyers)

(Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

(repre-
J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal,

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Declare that Articles 5(2) and 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff

Regulations are unlawful;

— Annul the decision appointing the applicant as an Assistant,
in that
it sets her classification at grade B*3, step 5,
pursuant to Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regula-
tions;

Action brought on 13 March 2006 — Perez-Minayo
Barroso and Pino v Commission

(Case F-31/06)

(2006/C 131/92)

Language of the case: French

— Annul the decision to remove all the points which form the

applicant's ‘rucksack’;

Parties

— Annul the decision to apply a multiplier for the purpose of

calculating the applicant's remuneration;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Isabelle Perez-Minayo Barroso (Brussels, Belgium)
Applicants:
and Marco Pino (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi,
lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a successful candidate in the internal competi-
tion for change of category COM/PB/04, the notice for which
was published before the date when the new Staff Regulations
entered into force. After that date, she was appointed by the
defendant to the higher category, but her previous grade, step
and multiplier were retained. However, her promotion points
were re-set at zero.

In her action, the applicant submits, first, that the contested
decisions infringe the legal framework formed by the notice for
the competition which she passed, and Articles 5, 29 and 31 of
the Staff Regulations, the principle that officials should have
reasonable career prospects and the principle of proportion-
ality.

The applicant claims, second, that those decisions also infringe
the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. On
one hand, the classification of successful candidates in the same

Form of order sought

— Declare that Articles 5 and 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff

Regulations are unlawful;

— Annul the specific decisions appointing the applicants as
Administrators, in that they set their classification pursuant
to Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

— Annul the specific decisions to remove the points accumu-
lated by the applicants in their former category, forming
their ‘rucksack’;

— Annul the specific decisions to apply a multiplier lower
than 1 for the purposes of determining the applicant's
remuneration;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/51

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are successful candidates in the internal compe-
tition for change of category COM/PA/04, the notice for which
was published before the date when the new Staff Regulations
entered into force. After that date, they were appointed by the
defendant to the higher category, but their previous grade, step
and multiplier were retained. However, their promotion points
were re-set at zero.

In their action, the applicants submit, first, that the contested
decisions infringe the legal framework formed by the notice for
the competition which they passed, and Articles 5, 29 and 31
of the Staff Regulations, the principle that officials should have
reasonable career prospects and the principle of proportion-
ality.

The applicants claim, second, that those decisions also infringe
the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. On
one hand, the classification of successful candidates in the same
competition or in competitions at the same level
is set at
recruitment occurs
levels depending on whether
different
before or after the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations.
On the other hand,
the applicants are at a disadvantage
compared with the officials appointed as Administrators under
the certification procedure, in that the latter retain their promo-
tion points, while the applicants' ‘rucksacks’ were re-set at zero.

Lastly, according to the applicants, the contested decisions are
contrary to the principle of the protection of legitimate expec-
tations, in so far as they were entitled to expect to be appointed
to the grades given in the competition notice.

Action brought on 17 March 2006 — De la Cruz and
Others v European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

(Case F-32/06)

(2006/C 131/93)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: María del Carmen De la Cruz (Galdakao, Spain) and
Others (represented by: G. Vandersanden et L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant(s): European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul the grading given in the 28 April 2005 contract of
employment which was to take effect on 1 May 2005 to
classify the applicants at group II, implying the reinstate-
ment of all the applicants' rights as deriving from a legal
and regular employment,
i.e. group III, as from 1 May
2005.

— Award the applicants: i) damages in form of a legal and
regular pay in so included all derived financial
rights
(including pension). In that respect, the monthly difference
of basic salary between a classification in group II and a
classification in group III has been evaluated to EUR 536.89
for Mrs De la Cruz, Mrs Estrataetxe, Mrs Grados and Mr
Moral and to EUR 474.57 for Mr Sánchez; ii) the interest
retard) on the above mentioned
for delay (intérêts de
damages running as from 1 May 2005 until
their full
iii) compensation for their prejudice to their
payment;
career;
iv) EUR 1 for each applicant to compensate their
moral prejudice.

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants were recruited as contract staff according to
Article 3a of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants
of the Communities (CEOS) and classified in function group II.
In their action,
they are
performing some of their tasks with a clear level of liability and
independency,
they should have been classified in function
group III.

the applicants

that, as

submit

the General

In their first plea, the applicants invoke mainly a violation of
Article 80 of the CEOS, of Article 2 of the Annex to the CEOS,
implementing provision on the procedure
of
governing the engagement and the use of contract staff at the
Commission, of the principle of good administration and a
manifest error of appreciation.

In their second plea, they argue that their classification was not
fixed with regard to their duties and responsibilities and to the
situation of their colleagues working in other agencies and
institutions. For that reason, they allege a violation of the prin-
ciples of equal treatment and non discrimination as well as of
the principle of equivalence of positions and grades.

third plea,

the applicants argue that

the Staff
In their
Committee has not been properly consulted on the draft job
descriptions and the Agency's draft guidelines on the classifica-
tion of contract staff.

Finally, the applicants invoke a violation of the duty to have
regard for the interests of officials laid down in Article 24 of
the Staff Regulations.