Case F-9/06: Action brought on  30 January 2006  — Canteiro Lopez v Commission
Date: 2006-03-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, equal treatment, personnel administration, promotion, staff assessment

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/35

The applicant subsequently adds that the Commission officials
who spread and even included in an inquiry report false infor-
mation about her occupational
illness were guilty of serious
misconduct. That misconduct leads to liability on the part of
the defendant, who should therefore pay compensation for the
material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant.

servants of the European Communities (1),
in so far as that
regime is based on new ‘pension’ weightings which are no
longer calculated by reference to the capital but according to
the average cost of living in the Member State in which the
pensioner shows that he has established his principal residence.

Action brought on 3 February 2006 — Tolios and Others
v Court of Auditors

(Case F-8/06)

(2006/C 74/68)

Language of the case: French

In support of their claims, the applicants maintain, first of all,
that the regulation is based on incorrect reasoning, in so far as
neither
the Community, nor
freedom of movement and residence, nor the difficulty in
monitoring the actual place of residence of pensioners can
serve as a basis for the transitional regime in question.

the deepened integration of

The applicants further maintain that there has been a breach in
the present case of the principles of equal treatment,
legal
certainty, the retroactivity of acquired rights and the protection
of legitimate expectations.

(1) OJEU 2004 L 124 of 27.04.2004, p. 1.

Parties

Applicants: Iraklis Tolios (Paris, France), François Muller (Stras-
bourg, France) and Odette Perron (La Rochelle, France) (repre-
sented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Auditors

Action brought on 30 January 2006 — Canteiro Lopez v
Commission

(Case F-9/06)

(2006/C 74/69)

Form of order sought

Language of the case: French

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the action admissible and well founded, including

the objection of illegality contained therein;

Parties

— in consequence, annul

the applicants' pension slips for
March 2005,
the effect of which will be to apply a
weighting at the level of the capital of their country of resi-
the very least, a weighting capable of
dence or, at
adequately reflecting the differences in the cost of living in
the places where the applicants are deemed to incur their
expenditure and therefore consistent with the principle of
equivalence;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Applicant: Rui Canteiro Lopez (Lisbon, Portugal) and Others
(represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicants in the present case are all officials who retired
before 1 May 2004. They contest the transitional regime put in
place, pending the abolition 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

— Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 13
October 2005 not to add the applicant's name to the list of
to
officials judged to be the most deserving and not
promote him to Grade A4 in the 2000 promotion exercise.

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

C 74/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.3.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

On 21 December 2000, the applicant submitted a complaint
against the decision not to promote him to Grade A4 in the
2000 promotion exercise. On 2 July 2001,
the defendant
allowed that complaint and informed the applicant that action
had been taken to finalise his staff report, but this was not
done. As a result, the applicant submitted an application for
information about the steps taken as a result of that decision of
2 July 2001. The defendant, after having acknowledged that
the 1995-1997 and 1997-1999 staff reports had not yet been
finalised, offered to set the applicant's 1997-1999 report at the
same level as the report which he had obtained for the period
1991-2001.

Although the applicant refused that offer, the defendant never-
theless concluded the applicant's staff report for the period
1997-1999 and decided not to add his name to the list of offi-
cials judged to be the most deserving, and not to promote him
to Grade A4 in the 2000 promotion exercise.

In support of his action, the applicant first submits that that
decision is invalidated inasmuch as it was taken without there
being any lawfully finalised staff reports for the periods at
issue. The defendant is accused of effectively committing a
breach of its administrative duty by not ensuring that the appli-
cant's staff reports for the period between 1 July 1995 and 30
June 1999 were drawn-up at the appropriate time.

The applicant also maintains that the defendant carried out the
the applicant's comparative merits in an
consideration of
improper manner,
inasmuch as it made use of alternative
criteria, such as age and length of service, which may only be
applied where the officials eligible for promotion are of equal
merit, a condition which was not met in this instance. The
contested decision therefore infringes Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations and the principle of equal treatment.

Action brought on 31 January 2006 — Larsen v Commis-
sion

(Case F-11/06)

(2006/C 74/70)

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of 2 March 2005 made by the Director
of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual
Entitlements to reduce the applicant's remuneration from 1
May 2005;

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant the rent allowance
to which he is entitled, since the day on which it ceased to
be paid to him, together with compensatory interest calcu-
lated at a rate two points above the central rate of the Euro-
pean Central Bank;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official assigned to the Commission Repre-
sentation Office in London, received from 1 October 2002 a
rent allowance under Article 14a of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations
and Regulation No 6/66/Euratom and No
121/66/EEC (1). That article was repealed when the Staff Regu-
lations were reformed and so the Commission, by decision of 2
May 2005, withdrew that allowance from the applicant.

In support of his action, the applicant first alleges the infringe-
ment of Article 62 of the Staff Regulations and Article 19 of
Annex XIII thereto. He points out, in particular, that the defen-
dant was wrong to apply the latter article in accordance with
the interpretation adopted by the Heads of Administration on
14 October 2004, which excludes the rent allowance from the
remuneration covered by the transitional measures laid down
in that article. Such an interpretation is unlawful, inasmuch as
it reduces the scope of the net income guarantee referred to by
the provision in question.

In addition, the applicant contends that the contested decision
infringes the principle of the equivalent purchasing power of
officials, as prescribed by Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regu-
lations.

Parties

Applicants: Holger Larsen (London, United Kingdom) and
Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E.
Marchal, lawyers)

(1) Regulation No 6/66/Euratom, 121/66/EEC of the Councils of 28
July 1966 laying down the list of places for which a rent allowance
may be granted, the maximum amount of that allowance and the
rules for granting it, OJ, English Special Edition 1965-6 (1), p. 212.