Case F-24/06: Action brought on  10 March 2006  — Abarca Montiel and Others v Commission
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, appointment of staff, child care, pay, personnel administration, professional career, servant (EU)

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/33

The Tribunal is asked to

Action brought on 10 March 2006 — Abarca Montiel and
Others v Commission

— annul the decisions notifying the applicants of their change
of category,
in so far as those decisions allocate a grade
lower than that which should have been obtained under the
provisions of the Staff Regulations, maintain the mulitiplier
coefficient and cancel the applicants' promotion points;

(Case F-24/06)

(2006/C 108/61)

Language of the case: French

— declare that Article 12 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regula-

tions is unlawful;

Parties

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Applicants: Sabrina Abarca Montiel and Others (represented by:
L. Vogel, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

The applicants were all successful candidates in internal compe-
titions for change of category COM/PA/04 and COM/PB/04, in
respect of which notices were published before the date on
which the new Staff Regulations entered into force. After that
date, they were appointed by the defendant to a higher cate-
gory, but with the same grade, step and multiplier coefficient
as before. By contrast, their promotion points were reset at
zero.

In their application, the applicants submit that the appointment
decisions infringe Articles 31 and 62 of the Staff Regulations
and Article 2(1) and (2) and Article 5(2) of Annex XIII thereto,
inasmuch as under those provisions they should have obtained
a better grading. The defendant has thus infringed the right of
all officials to be recruited to the grade stated in the competi-
tion notice, and has discriminated against the applicants as
compared with the successful candidates in other competitions
giving access to the same categories.

Furthermore, the applicants submit that there is no legal basis
which permits the defendant to continue to apply to them the
multiplier coefficients laid down by their former categories or
to deprive them of the promotion points they have in their
‘rucksacks’.

Finally, according to the applicants, the contested decisions also
infringe the principles of the protection of legitimate expecta-
tions, the protection of acquired rights and equal treatment.

— Annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to
conclude contracts of employment (AACC) of 21 November
2005 rejecting the complaints made by the applicants on
various dates between 26 July 2005 and 17 August 2005,
criticising the administrative decisions which fixed the
grading and remuneration of each of the applicants and
also criticising Article 7 of the decision adopted by the
College of Commissioners on 27 April 2005 containing the
‘General
transitional
measures applicable to staff employed by the Office for
Infrastructure in Brussels in the day nurseries and kinder-
gartens in Brussels’ (GIP) and Annexes I and II to that deci-
sion;

implementing provisions

the

for

— 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.

C 108/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.5.2006

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.

Action brought on 10 March 2006 — Ider and Others v
Commission

(Case F-25/06)

(2006/C 108/62)

Language of the case: French

staff. They dispute their grading and their remuneration fixed
by the defendant on their appointment as contract staff.

that pursuant

In the first plea in law raised in their application, the applicants
submit
to the Memorandum of Agreement
concluded on 22 January 2002 between the Commission and
the delegation of the staff of the day nurseries and kindergar-
tens on contracts governed by Belgian law, they should have
been given a more advantageous grading. Their grading in
function group I, at grade I, constitutes a manifest error of
assessment and a breach of the principle of non-discrimination,
since they were regarded as inexperienced novices when they
had a significant length of service.

In the second plea in law, the applicants claim infringement of
Article 2(2) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants
(CEOS), of the abovementioned Memorandum of Agreement,
of the principle of non-discrimination and of the general princi-
ples applicable in social security matters. In particular, calcula-
tion of the remuneration to be guaranteed to the applicants
should not have taken child allowances into account.

Parties

Action brought on 10 March 2006 — Bertolete and Others
v Commission

Applicants: Béatrice Ider and Others (represented by: L. Vogel,
lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

(Case F-26/06)

(2006/C 108/63)

Language of the case: French

— annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to
conclude contracts of employment (AACC) of 21 November
2005 rejecting the applicants' complaints of 26 July 2005
criticising the administrative decisions which fixed the
grading and remuneration of each of the applicants and
also criticising Article 8 of the decision adopted by the
College of Commissioners on 27 April 2005 containing the
'General
transitional
measures applicable to staff employed by the Office for
Infrastructure in Brussels in the day nurseries and kinder-
gartens in Brussels' and Annexes I and II to that decision;

implementing provisions

the

for

— also,

in so far as necessary, annul the decisions against

which the abovementioned complaints were 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

Parties

Applicants: Marli Bertolete and Others (represented by: L. Vogel,
lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to
conclude contracts of employment (AACC) of 21 November
2005 rejecting the applicants' complaints of 26 July 2005
criticising the administrative decisions which fixed the
grading and remuneration of each of the applicants and
also criticising Article 7 of the decision adopted by the
College of Commissioners on 27 April 2005 containing the
'General
transitional
measures applicable to staff employed by the Office for
Infrastructure in Brussels in the day nurseries and kinder-
gartens in Brussels' (GIP) and Annexes I and II to that deci-
sion;

implementing provisions

the

for