Case F-1/06: Action brought on  1 January 2006  — Fernandez Ortis v Commission
Date: 2006-03-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, dismissal, regulations for civil servants, traineeship

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/33

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Action brought on 1 January 2006 — Fernandez Ortis v
Commission

Action brought on 6 January 2006 — Frankin and Others
v Commission

(Case F-1/06)

(2006/C 74/64)

Language of the case: Spanish

(Case F-3/06)

(2006/C 74/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Juan Miguel Fernandez Ortis (Madrid, Spain) (repre-
sented by: J. R. Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer)

Parties

Applicants: Jacques Frankin (Sorée, Belgium) and Others (repre-
sented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the dismissal of the applicant by decision of 17
legal
June 2005 is unlawful, constituting an abuse of
process, and accordingly annul that decision and the deci-
sion associated with it of 23 September 2005;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former official of the Commission, took up his
duties on 1 February 2004, the date on which his nine-month
probationary period began, in accordance with Article 34(1) of
the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities.

A report of 4 October 2004 recommended his dismissal, but
the Commission decided exceptionally to extend his proba-
tionary period until 30 April 2005 in accordance with Article
34(3) of the Staff Regulations. By decision of 17 June 2005 the
Commission dismissed the applicant with effect from 1 July
2005.

In support of his application, the applicant claims that his
dismissal is unlawful on the ground that he was dismissed 17
months after the commencement of his probationary period,
which, under Article 34(4) of the Staff Regulations, may not
exceed 15 months.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the explicit decision of 10 June 2005 whereby the
Commission refused to afford the applicants assistance
under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;

— order the Commission to make good all the loss thereby

sustained by the applicants;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, who are all officials or other servants of the
Commission, had sought to have their pension entitlement
acquired in Belgium transferred to the Community system, in
accordance with the provisions of a Belgian law enacted in
1991. In 2003 Belgium enacted a new law, which, in the appli-
cants' submission, provides more favourable for new transfers
of that type. As the applicants had already transferred their
rights, however, they were unable to take advantage of the
provisions of the Law of 2003.

The applicants therefore submitted a request seeking to obtain
the assistance provided for in Article 24 of the Staff Regula-
tions. The Commission, which had no intention of assisting its
officials and temporary servants to secure those transfers,
rejected their request by decision of 10 June 2005.

By their action, the applicants contest that decision, which they
treat as a refusal to afford assistance, in breach of Article 24 of
the Staff Regulations. In addition to that article, they rely in
support of their claims on a breach of the duty to have regard
to the welfare of the staff, of the principle of non-discrimina-
tion, of the prohibition of unfair process, of the obligation to
state reasons, of legitimate expections and of the rule patere
legem quam ipse fecisti and on a misuse of powers.