Case F-4/06: Action brought on  13 January 2006  — Villa and Others v Parliament
Date: 2006-03-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, Italy, action by staff, regulations for civil servants, transfer of pension rights

C 74/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.3.2006

Action brought on 13 January 2006 — Villa and Others v
Parliament

Action brought on 18 January 2006 — Patak Dennstedt v
Commission

(Case F-4/06)

(2006/C 74/66)

Language of the case: French

(Case F-5/06)

(2006/C 74/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Renata Villa (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) and
Others (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

Parties

Defendant: European Parliament

Applicant: Dunja Patak Dennstedt (London, United Kingdom)
(represented by: S. Rodrigues, Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

Form of order sought

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul decisions Nos 102494, 102494 and 102496 of 8
February 2005 whereby the appointing authority of the
European Parliament refused to reimburse to the applicants
the excess premium resulting from the difference between
the rights acquired during the years when they were
affiliated to the Italian scheme and the number of annuities
transferred to the Community scheme following a new
calculation of the transfer of their pension rights;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main argument

In 1991, the applicants, who are officials of the European
Parliament, transferred to the Community scheme the pension
rights which they had acquired in Italy before entering the
service of the Communities. The difference between the actual
number of years of affiliation to the Italian scheme and the
number of annuities resulting from the calculation of
the
premium in the Community scheme was determined in accord-
ance with the general implementing provisions then applied by
the Parliament, which did not align the premium with the
number of years of affiliation in Italy.

Following the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, the
applicants submitted requests seeking to obtain a new calcula-
tion of the premium previously obtained, in reliance on Article
26(5) and (6) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations. The
requests were rejected and the applicants lodged complaints,
which were also rejected by the appointing authority.

In their action, the applicants claim that there has been a
breach of Article 26 of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations,
and also of Article 1(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations,
in both the new and the old versions.

They further maintain that the Parliament has also breached
the principles of proper administration, of equal treatment, of
non-discrimination, of the prohibition of unfair process, of the
protection of legitimate expectations, of non-enrichment and
also of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul

the decision of

the Appointing Authority of 4
October 2005 dismissing the applicant's objection taken
together with the decision to reject
the application
previously submitted by the applicant;

— Order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of

EUR 35 000 as compensation for the loss suffered;

— In the alternative, order the withdrawal of the disputed
document from the inquiry report of 18 September 2001;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official receiving invalidity allow-
ance, brought an action before the Court of First Instance for
the annulment of certain decisions taken by the defendant.
During those proceedings, she gained knowledge of a number
of documents relating to internal Commission proceedings
which concerned her and submitted an application, firstly, to
obtain the withdrawal from the file of documents in which an
official appeared to draw personal conclusions about the appli-
cant's occupational illness and, secondly, to check whether the
conduct of certain officials during a disciplinary procedure had
complied with the requirements under the Staff Regulations.

The application having been rejected, the applicant entered an
objection, which was also dismissed by the appointing
authority.

In her action, the applicant first submits that the decision
dismissing her objection is in breach of the defendant's obliga-
tions towards its officials. In her view, that decision infringes a
number of general
legal principles, such as the principle of
good administration and the duty to have regard for the inter-
ests of officials.