Case F-22/06: Action brought on  6 March 2006  — Vienne and Others v European Parliament
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action by staff, indemnification, regulations for civil servants, rights of civil servants, transfer of pension rights

C 108/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.5.2006

— complete reinstatement of the applicant's career with effect
retrospective to the date of his being classified in the grade
and step thus corrected, including the payment of default
interest;

— an order that the Commission of the European Commu-

nities should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 7 November 2003 the Commission published a notice of
vacancy for a director's post at Grade A2, pursuant to Article
29(2) of the Staff Regulations. The applicant, a head of unit in
Grade 3, step 7, occupying that post as a locum tenens,
decided to apply for it.

By decision of 18 May 2005 he was appointed to the vacant
post and classified in Grade A*14, step 2, the date on which
that was to take effect being fixed at 16 September 2004.

In his action the applicant argues that this classification is
lower than Grade 2, now A*15, which appeared in the notice
of vacancy. What is more, the classification is also lower than
that enjoyed by the applicant before his appointment to the
director's post, while he was head of unit. That result is not
consistent with the fact that a director's post entails higher
duties and responsibilities.

The applicant considers that his classification is contrary to
Articles 2(1) and 5 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations. More
than one legal principle has also been infringed: the principle
of non-discrimination, the principle of correspondence of grade
to post, set out in Article 7(1) as an essential principle guaran-
teeing equal
legal
certainty and protection of legitimate expectations, and the
principles of good administration and the duty to have regard
to the interests of officials. In addition, there is an infringement
of the right to reasonable career prospects and of the interests
of the service.

treatment of officials,

the principles of

In the alternative, the applicant claims that Article 12(3) of
Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful.

Form of order sought

— annul the annul the explicit decision of 14 November 2005
whereby the European Parliament refused to afford the
applicants assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regula-
tions;

— order the European Parliament to make good all the loss

thereby sustained by the applicants;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs;

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, who are all officials or other servants of the
European Parliament, had sought to have their pension rights
acquired in Belgium transferred to the Community system, in
accordance with the provisions of a Belgian law enacted in
1991. In 2003 Belgium enacted a new law which, in the appli-
cants' submission, provides more favourable conditions for new
transfers of that type. As the applicants had already transferred
their rights, however, they were unable to take advantage of
the provisions of the Law of 2003.

The applicants therefore submitted a request seeking to obtain
the assistance provided for in Article 24 of the Staff Regula-
tions. The European Parliament, which had no intention of
assisting its officials and temporary servants to secure those
transfers, rejected their request by decision of 14 November
2005.

By their action, the applicants contest that decision, which they
treat as a refusal to afford assistance, in breach of Article 24 of
the Staff Regulations. In addition to that article, they rely in
support of their claims on a breach of the duty to have regard
to the welfare of the staff, of the principle of non-discrimina-
tion, of the prohibition of arbitrary process, of the obligation
to state reasons, of legitimate expectations and of the rule
‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’ and on a misuse of powers.

Action brought on 6 March 2006 — Vienne and Others v
European Parliament

(Case F-22/06)

(2006/C 108/59)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 3 March 2006 — Abad-Villanueva and
Others v Commission

(Case F-23/06)

(2006/C 108/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Philippe Vienne (Bascharage, Luxembourg) and
Others (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

Applicants: Roberto Abad-Villanueva and Others (represented
by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities