Case F-10/06: Action brought on  5 January 2006  — Daniel André v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-04-22
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, European Commission, action by staff, allowances and expenses, conference proceedings, contract, information profession, provision of services, servant (EU)

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;