Case F-29/06: Action brought on  13 March 2006  — Arnaldos Rosauro and Others v Commission
Date: 2006-03-13
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, promotion

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/19

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Action brought on 17 March 2006 — Sequeira Wand-
schneider v Commission

right to a defence and his right to an effective appeal proce-
dure.

(Case F-28/06)

(2006/C 121/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Paulo Sequeira Wandschneider (Brussels, Belgium)
(represented by: G. Vandersanden and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul

(CDR)
the applicant's career development report
covering the reference period from 1 January 2004 to 31
December 2004;

— As

far as necessary, annul

the decision rejecting the
complaint brought by the applicant on 5 September 2005;

— Order

the defendant

to pay damages and interest

to
compensate for the material and non-material loss suffered,
assessed on an equitable basis,
to
increase their amount to EUR 5 000;

reserving the right

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is of the view, firstly, that his CDR is vitiated by
manifest errors of assessment and a failure to state the grounds
and, secondly, that the defendant has infringed the duty to
have regard for the welfare of officials and the duty of sound
administration.

Lastly, the applicant alleges a misuse of powers, inasmuch as
the appraisal of his performance as unsatisfactory is simply a
means of attempting to remove him from his position as an
investigator.

Action brought on 13 March 2006 — Arnaldos Rosauro
and Others v Commission

(Case F-29/06)

(2006/C 121/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Andres Arnaldos Rosauro and Others (represented
by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The applicant, a Commission official with responsibility, inter
alia, for conducting investigations into dumping practices, chal-
lenges the validity of his CDR in respect of the 2004 appraisal
exercise.

Form of order sought

In his application, he submits that his immediate superior
awarded him lower marks than he deserved, on account of his
refusal to favour the interest of Community industry during his
investigations.

He also argues that the procedure followed in order to compile
the
his CDR infringes Article 43 of
general provisions implementing that Article,
the Appraisal
Guide and the Internal Rules of Procedure of the Joint Evalua-
tion Committee. The defendant also infringed the applicant's

the Staff Regulations,

— Annul the applicants'

instruments of appointment, taken
together with the remuneration slips which they have
received since the date of their advancement from category
C to category B, in that the slips appoint them in grade
B*3/B*4 and retain their basic salary as it was before the
change of category through the application of a multiplier;

— Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority to remove
the applicants' promotion points ('rucksack') following their
advancement from category C to category B;

C 121/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2006

— Inform the Appointing Authority of the consequences of
those annulments, that is to say, with retroactive effect
from the day of their advancement from category C to cate-
gory B: (1) the appointment of the applicants in grade B*5/
B*6 under Article 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations,
(2) the payment to them of the basic salary to which they
are entitled under the Article 2(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff
Regulations without a multiplier, (3) their retention, after
their advancement to category B, of the merit points and
transitional points which they accumulated when they were
employed in category C;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are all successful candidates of
the internal
competition for change of category COM/PB/04, the notice for
which was published before the date when the new Staff Regu-
lations entered into force. After that date, they were appointed
by the defendant to the higher category but, because of the
application of a multiplier, that did not entail an increase in

their remuneration. In addition, their promotion points were
re-set at zero.

In their action, the applicants submit three complaints, the first
of which is that their appointment to grade B*3/B*4 is unlawful
to the extent that the equivalent grades to those referred to in
the competition notice are the grades B*5/B*6, in accordance
with Article 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

So far as the second complaint is concerned, the applicants
argue that the application of a multiplier to their remuneration
is contrary to, on the one hand, the Staff Regulations, which
make no mention of the application of such a factor in this
instance, and, on the other hand, the principle of non-discrimi-
nation, the principle of the protection of legitimate expecta-
tions and the principle of acquired rights.

Lastly, as regards the third complaint, the applicants maintain
that the cancellation of their promotion points is contrary to
the spirit of Article 45a of the Staff Regulations and Article 5
of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, and the principle of
equal treatment.