Case F-19/06: Action brought on  20 February 2006  — Semeraro v Commission
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, professional career, promotion, staff assessment

C 108/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.5.2006

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Decision No 1/2006 of the Tribunal

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

adopted at the meeting of the full Tribunal on 15 February
2006

Form of order sought

on the assignment of cases to Chambers

(to be published in the OJ)

(2006/C 108/55)

By Decision 2005/C 322/09 of 30 November 2005 on the
criteria for the assignment of cases to Chambers (OJ 2005 C
322, p. 17), the Tribunal decided to assign a number of cases
to the Third Chamber,
subject-matter
involved, at regular intervals to be determined at a meeting of
the full Tribunal.

regardless of

the

At the meeting of the full Tribunal on 15 February 2006, that
interval was fixed at every seventh case, according to its
number in the list of new actions, the list beginning with the
first new case brought before the Tribunal, that is to say, Case
F-118/05.

As was stated in the abovementioned decision, derogations
may be made from that rule for reasons of connections
between cases and to ensure a balanced and reasonably diversi-
fied workload within the Tribunal.

Luxembourg, 15 February 2006.

The Registrar

W. HAKENBERG

The President

P. MAHONEY

Action brought on 20 February 2006 — Semeraro v
Commission

(Case F-19/06)

(2006/C 108/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maria Magdalena Semeraro ((Brussels, Belgium)
(represented by: L.Vogel, lawyer)

— annul

the decision of

the appointing authority of 8
November 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint of 12
August 2005 against the career development report (‘CDR’)
given to her for 2004;

— in so far as necessary, annul also that report;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of
the Commission promoted to
Grade C*6 on 30 November 2004, was awarded, in the context
of the assessment exercise for 2004, a number of merit points
that was very much lower than in previous years.

Since her complaint on that subject had been rejected, the
applicant brought the present action in which she puts forward
three pleas.

The first plea alleges a breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regula-
tions and Article 9(7) of the general provisions implementing
Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant claims, in par-
ticular, that the appeal assessor simply maintained the CDR as
it was, without answering the objections and observations of
the Joint Appraisal Committee with facts specific to the indivi-
dual case.

The second plea alleges a breach of Article 43 of the Staff
Regulations, of Article 1(2) of the general implementing provi-
sions, of the principle of proportionality and of the principle of
non-discrimination, and a manifest error of assessment. First,
the reduction in the merit points in respect of the 2004 exer-
cise does not accord with the fact that the analytical assess-
ments provided have remained the same as for previous exer-
cises. Second, the justification put forward by the administra-
tion, that the reduction is explained by the fact of the appli-
cant's promotion at the end of 2004, is of no relevance.

The third plea alleges a breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regula-
tions, of Article 10(3) of Annex XIII thereto, and of Article 9(7)
of the general implementing provisions, and a manifest error of
assessment.
the counter-signing
officer and the appeal assessor did not provide sufficient
reasons when giving a negative answer to the question of the
applicant's suitability to assume category B* duties.

the appraiser,

In particular,