Case F-13/06: Action brought on  9 February 2006  — Zuleta de Reales Ansaldo v Court of Justice
Date: 2006-04-22
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, European official, action by staff, appointment of staff, competition (EU), legal profession, personnel administration, professional career, regulations for civil servants

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;

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/37

— Consequently, restore the applicant's right

to the salary
corresponding to grade A*10, step 2 as from her appoint-
ment and restore her pension rights and the benefits and
allowances to which she is entitled as well as ensuring that,
for promotion purposes, regard is had to the date of her
appointment;

— Order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant took part in competition CJ/LA/25 aimed at
constituting a reserve list of Spanish-language lawyer-linguists
for grades LA7/LA6.

After passing the competition, the applicant was informed that
she had been appointed as a probationary official at grade A*7,
step 2 in the Translation Directorate of the Court of Justice as
from 16 May 2005.

In her action the applicant challenges her classification at a
lower grade pursuant to the entry into force of 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
servants of the European Communities. (1)

In support of her action, the applicant submits two pleas in
law. The first consists of a plea of illegality against Article 12(3)
and Article 13(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations. The
second is based on the infringement of the principle of good
administration, the duty to have regard for the welfare and
interests of officials, the principle of transparency, the principle
of good faith, the principle of equal treatment and the principle
of non-discrimination.

(1) OJ L 124, of 27.04.2004, p. 1

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the action admissible and well founded, including

the objection of illegality contained in it;

— consequently, annul the applicants' pension statements for
in the application of a
March 2005, so as to result
weighting for the capital of their country of residence or, at
least, of a weighting such as to reflect adequately the differ-
ences in the cost of living in the places where the applicants
are deemed to incur their expenditure and therefore to give
effect to the principle of equivalence;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and main arguments relied on by the applicants are
identical to those relied on in Case F-128/05 Adolf and Others
v Commission (1).

(1) OJ C 60 of 11.3.2006, p. 56.

Action brought on 15 February 2006 — Abba and Others
v European Parliament

(Case F-15/06)

(2006/C 96/59)

(Language of the case: French)

Action brought on 15 February 2006 — Chevalier
Carmana and Others v Court of Justice of the European
Communities

Applicants: Abba and Others (represented by: G. Vandersanden
and L. Levi, lawyers)

Parties

(Case F-14/06)

(2006/C 96/58)

(Language of the case: French)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Parties

Applicants: Giovanna Chevalier Carmana (Paris, France), Alice
Coda (Paris, France), Jacqueline Doucet (Paris, France), Françoise
Kluss (Ollioules, France) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and
L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities

— declare the action admissible and well founded, including

the objection of illegality contained in it;

— consequently, annul the applicants' pension statements for
March 2005, so as to result
in the application of a
weighting for the capital of their country of residence or, at
least, of a weighting such as to reflect adequately the differ-
ences in the cost of living in the places where the applicants
are deemed to incur their expenditure and therefore to give
effect to the principle of equivalence;