Case F-26/06: Action brought on  10 March 2006  — Bertolete 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)

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

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.