Case F-7/06: Action brought on  23 January 2006  — B v Commission
Date: 2006-04-22
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, allowances and expenses, dual nationality, equal treatment, regulations for civil servants

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/35

Form of order sought

Action brought on 23 January 2006 — B v Commission

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Case F-7/06)

(2006/C 96/55)

— declare inapplicable, within the meaning of Article 241 EC,

Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

(Language of the case: French)

— annul
applicant's
(AIPN)
against Decision No 000617 of 17 March 2005;

the decision by which the appointing authority
complaint

implicitly dismissed the

Parties

— annul only the part of that decision in which the AIPN
instead of

placed the applicant in Grade A*6, first step,
A*8, first step;

Applicant: B (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues
and A. Jaume, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— order the defendant to replace the contested part of that
decision with a part placing the applicant, with retroactive
effect, in Grade A*8, first step;

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay the applicant all the amounts
which he did not receive owing to the unlawfulness of the
contested decisions, including interest;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who was included on the reserve list for Compe-
tition EUR/A/155/2000 for Grades A6 and A7, was subse-
quently recruited by the Commission at Grade A*6 after the
new Staff Regulations had come into force.

By his application he claims primarily that the decision deter-
mining his grade infringes Article 31 of the Staff Regulations.

He goes on to submit that,
in any event, that decision is
unlawful, in so far as its legal basis, Article 12 of Annex XIII to
the Staff Regulations, is unlawful on the ground that it infringes
the following principles: legal certainty, the protection of legiti-
mate expectations, non-discrimination, equal treatment, reason-
ableness and proper administration. Finally and in the alterna-
tive, the applicant adds that even if the protection of legitimate
expectations is not always absolute, any exception thereto and/
or derogation therefrom must be duly justified, a condition
which was not fulfilled in this case.

— annul

the decision of

the Appointing Authority of 10
October 2005 dismissing the applicant's complaint taken in
conjunction with the decision of the Appointing Authority
of 26 April 2005 refusing to grant the applicant an expa-
triation allowance;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant an expatriation

allowance, as from the date of taking up her post;

— order the defendant to pay interest for late payment, as

from the decision to be taken;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission, challenges the
decision which definitively establishes her rights by which the
defendant refused her an expatriation allowance.

In support of her action, she pleads infringement of Article
4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. She also raises a
plea of unlawfulness to the effect
the
criterion of nationality, set out in the first indent of that provi-
sion, to officials who have both the nationality of the Member
State where they are employed and that of another Member
State, infringes the principles of non-discrimination and equal
treatment.

that application of

Next, the applicant claims that,
in any event, she fulfils the
condition of residence under the second indent of the provision
in question.

In the alternative, the applicant pleads infringement of Article
4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in so far as the
contested decision does not take account of the fact that the
applicant satisfies both the criterion of nationality and the
criterion of residence cited in that provision.

C 96/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.4.2006

In the further alternative, the applicant pleads infringement of
Article 4(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in so far as
that provision cannot be interpreted as requiring an official
with dual nationality to renounce that of the Member State
where he is employed in order to be entitled to an expatriation
allowance.

Action brought on 5 January 2006 — Daniel André v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-10/06)

(2006/C 96/56)

(Language of the case: French)

Parties

Applicant(s): Daniel André (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
M. Jourdan, avocat)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul

the Commission decision of 6 October 2005
refusing to pay the applicant,
in respect of a service
rendered for and at the request of the Court of Justice on
12 and 13 January 2005, the flat-rate allowance laid down
by Article 7 of the Agreement on working conditions and
financial
interpreters
recruited by the institutions of the European Union;

conference

contract

terms

for

— Order the defendant

to pay compensation for the loss
suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested deci-
sion, namely to pay the sum of EUR 241.99 corresponding
to the allowance which should have been paid, together
with interest thereon from the date of request;

down by Article 7 of that agreement and set out in detail in
the ‘rules for implementing’ certain provisions of that agree-
ment annexed thereto.

In his application,
the applicant challenges the defendant's
interpretation of those provisions according to which the busi-
ness trip must cause a loss of earnings in order for the allow-
ance in question to be paid. Furthermore, the Commission was
wrong to find that, as the applicant had already worked for a
Community institution on 10 and 11 January 2005, 12
January 2005 was not the first day of his contract.

The applicant claims that the text of the agreement does not,
even impliedly, contain the additional conditions required by
the defendant, which would wrongfully alter the scope of the
agreement.

Lastly, the applicant submits that the fact of there being a
succession of contracts with one or more Community institu-
tions does not enable it to deny him the benefit of the allow-
ance in question.

Action brought on 9 February 2006 — Zuleta de Reales
Ansaldo v Court of Justice

(Case F-13/06)

(2006/C 96/57)

(Language of the case: French)

Parties

Applicant: Leticia Zuleta de Reales Ansaldo (Luxembourg,
Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a contract conference interpreter, renders peri-
odic services to various Interpretation services within the Com-
munity institutions. His services are supplied under contracts
fixing the days and the place in which the interpretation is
required. Those contracts are governed, as regards the financial
aspects, by the Agreement on working conditions and financial
terms for contract conference interpreters recruited by the insti-
tutions of the European Union.

In the present case, the applicant challenges the Commission
decision refusing to pay him the flat-rate travel allowance laid

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the appointing authority of the Court
of Justice of 4 May 2005 appointing the applicant and
grading her at grade A*7, step 2;

— Reinstate the applicant at the grade (A*10, step 2) in which
she should as a matter of course have been graded in
accordance with the provisions in the notice of competition
CJ/LA/25 in which she was a successful candidate;

— Wholly restore the applicant's rightful career prospects with
retrospective effect from the date on which she was graded
at the grade and step thus adjusted, including interest for
late payment;