Case F-27/06: Action brought on  10 March 2006  — Lofaro v Commission
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, dismissal, indemnification, personnel administration, probationary period, servant (EU), staff assessment

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/35

— also,

in so far as necessary, annulment of the decisions
abovementioned complaints were

against which the
directed;

— an order that the Commission of the European Commu-

nities is to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, who are currently contract staff working in the
day nurseries and kindergartens in Brussels, were already
performing the same work under employment contracts
subject to Belgian law before they were appointed as contract
staff. They dispute their grading and their remuneration fixed
by the defendant on their appointment as contract staff.

In the first plea in law of their application, the applicants
submit that by application of the GIP and other provisions
relating to the Commission's contract staff, they should have
been graded in function group III instead of in function group
II, in view of their qualifications and their length of service.

In the second plea in law, the applicants complain, inter alia,
that they have not benefited from the minimum remuneration
laid down in Article 6 of the GIP.

In the third plea in law, the applicants claim infringement of
Article 2(2) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants
(CEOS), of the Memorandum of Agreement concluded on 22
January 2002 between the Commission and the delegation of
the staff of the day nurseries and kindergartens on contracts
governed by Belgian law, of the principle of non-discrimination
and of
the general principles applicable in social security
matters. In particular, calculation of the remuneration to be
guaranteed to the applicants should not have taken child allow-
ances into account.

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the decision of 6 June 2005 to extend the
applicant's probationary period by 6 months, of the deci-
sion of 28 September 2005 to dismiss him at the end of
that period, and of the reports at the expiry of the proba-
tionary periods on which those two decisions are based;

— So far as necessary, annulment of

the
authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment
(AACC) of 23 November 2005 rejecting the applicant's
complaint;

the decision of

— An order that the defendant is to pay the applicant, as
compensation for the loss suffered, damages assessed on
equitable grounds at EUR 85 473 for material
loss and
EUR 50 000 for non-material
loss, such amounts to be
increased or reduced as appropriate during the proceedings;

— An order that the Commission of the European Commu-

nities is to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former temporary agent at the Commission,
was employed from 16 September 2004 until 15 September
2009 under a contract which provided for a probationary
period of 6 months,
in accordance with Article 14 of the
Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. Following an
initial negative evaluation report, an extension of the proba-
tionary period by six months and a second negative evaluation
report, the defendant ended that contract.

In his application, the applicant submits that the defendant
made manifest errors of assessment. It is likewise alleged to
have infringed the general principles which safeguard the right
to dignity and to a defence and to have made superfluous
critical comments.

Action brought on 10 March 2006 — Lofaro v Commis-
sion

(Case F-27/06)

(2006/C 108/64)

Language of the case: French

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 March 2006 —
Marenco v Commission

(Case F-96/05) (1)

(2006/C 108/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Lofaro (Brussels, Belgium)
by: J.-L. Laffineur, lawyer)

(represented

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be
removed from the register.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

(1) OJ C 10 of 14.1.2006.