Case F-15/06: Action brought on  15 February 2006  — Abba and Others v European Parliament
Date: 2006-04-22
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action by staff, pension scheme

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;

C 96/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.4.2006

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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).

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.

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

Action brought on 21 February 2006 — Marc Vereecken v
Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 15 February 2006 — Augenault and
Others v Council

(Case F-16/06)

(2006/C 96/60)

(Language of the case: French)

Parties

(Case F-17/06)

(2006/C 96/61)

(Language of the case: French)

Parties

Applicant(s): Marc Vereecken (Brussels, Belgium)
by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume)

(represented

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

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

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.

— Annul

the decisions of

the Appointing Authority (AA)
dismissing the applicant's complaint, together with the deci-
sion of the AA of 19 October 2004 and the pay slips for
the months of February 2005 et seq.
in so far as they
change the applicant's grade to A*8, and the decision
awarding merit points, priority points and compensation
points for leave on personal grounds (CCP) adopted by the
AA;

— Inform the AA of

the consequences of annulling the
contested decisions, and in particular: (i) the promotion of
the applicant to grade A*10 (ex A6) with retroactive effect
from 2001, or at least from 1 October 2004, when the
applicant was re-employed; (ii) at least the promotion of
the applicant to grade A*9 with effect from 1 October
2004; (iii) the award to the applicant of the points to which
he is entitled with effect from his promotion,
including
merit points, priority points and transitional points for the
CDRs 2003, 2004 and 2005;