Case F-39/06: Action brought on  11 April 2006  — Chassagne v Commission
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, Réunion, action by staff, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, regulations for civil servants

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/53

The applicant next submits that by failing to adopt the assess-
ment in question for 2004 in the circumstances of the present
case, the Appointing Authority clearly failed correctly to apply
and interpret the provisions of the Staff Regulations and the
principles referred to above. Its decision is therefore based on
an inaccurate statement of reasons both in fact and law. The
applicant is therefore the victim of administrative discrimina-
tion and has been placed in a situation which infringes his
legitimate expectations and interests and amounts to harass-
ment at work.

In support of the claim for damages, the applicant submits that
the implied decision rejecting his request left him in a state of
uncertainty and anxiety which persisted for a number of
months, giving rise to consequent material and non-material
loss.

Action brought on 10 April 2006 — Strack v Commission

(Case F-37/06)

(2006/C 131/96)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 11 April 2006 — Chassagne v Commis-
sion

(Case F-39/06)

(2006/C 131/97)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: G.
Bouneaou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Applicant(s): Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium) (represented
by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, avocats)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Annul the defendant's implied decision of 7 July 2005
rejecting the applicant's request that his illness should be
acknowledged to be an occupational illness;

— Declare illegal and therefore inapplicable to the applicant
Article 8 of Annex VII of the new Staff Regulations of Offi-
cials of the European Communities;

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 2 000 by
way of damages and interest to compensate for the material
loss suffered in consequence of the decision of 7 July 2005
to reject the request;

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 5 000 by
way of damages and interest to compensate for the non-
material loss suffered in consequence of the decision of 7
July 2005 to reject the request;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the claim for annulment, the applicant puts
forward three pleas alleging, by the first plea, infringement of
Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, by the second plea, infringe-
ment of the principle of the prohibition on arbitrary procedure,
of the obligation to give reasons and abuse of powers and, by
the third plea, infringement of the duty to have regard for the
welfare of officials.

— Award the applicant damages for non-pecuniary loss in the
symbolic sum of EUR 1 and for pecuniary loss in the sum
of EUR 16 473.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an Official of the Commission, is originally from
the
Réunion, a French Overseas Department. He brought
present action following the dismissal of a complaint which he
had made against his salary statement for July 2005 containing
the reimbursement of his annual travel expenses.

In support of his action, the applicant alleges that Article 8 of
Annex VII of the Staff Regulations, in the version in force since
1 May 2004 is illegal. He claims that that provision is contrary
to Community law in that it entails differences in remuneration
based on the place of origin of Officials as well as discrimina-
tion contrary to Articles 12 EC and 229 EC amongst others,
and more generally on the basis of nationality, belonging to a
linguistic minority, ethnic origin or race.

C 131/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

The applicant also claims that that provision infringes other
general principles of Community law, such as the duty to state
reasons and the principles of proportionality, transparency and
sound administration, as well as of legitimate expectations and
legal certainty.

— Infringement of the duty to have regard to the welfare of

staff and of the duty of sound administration;

— Misuse of power and of the principle of not causing harm

to others.

Action brought on 12 April 2006 — Marcuccio v Commis-
sion

Action brought on 13 April 2006 — Sundholm v Commis-
sion

(Case F-41/06)

(2006/C 131/98)

Language of the case: Italian

(Case F-42/06)

(2006/C 131/99)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: L.
Garofalo, professor and lawyer)

Applicant(s): Asa Sundholm (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, avocats)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Commission of 30 May 2005, by
which the applicant was retired and granted an invalidity
allowance established in accordance with Article 78(3) of
the Staff Regulations;

— Annul the decision of the Commission of 16 December
2005, notified on 20 January 2006, which rejected the
applicant's complaint against the decision of 30 May 2005;

— Annul a whole series of measures connected to the above-

mentioned decision;

— Order the Commission to compensate the applicant for the
material, non-material and substantial damage sustained,
together with interest at the statutory rate;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges the decision to retire him on account
of permanent invalidity, and a series of measures connected to
that decision.

He submits that
account of:

the contested decisions are unlawful on

— Total failure to state adequate grounds, inter alia by stating

tautologous, inconsistent and incoherent reasons;

— Infringement of the right to a fair hearing and of Article 9

of Annex II to the Staff Regulations;

— Procedural errors, infringements of laws and infringement

of substantive rules;

— Declare illegal Article 12 of the Commission Decision of 3
March 2004 on the general provisions for implementing
Article 43 of the Staff Regulations (GIP);

— Annul

the decision establishing the applicant's Career
Development Review (CDR) for the period 1 January 2004
to 31 December 2004;

— Order the defendant to pay, at this stage of the proceedings,

EUR 1 in respect of non-pecuniary loss;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action, the applicant submits first of all that
the amendments of the GIP infringe the principle of
legal
certainty and the Official's entitlement to reasonable career
prospects, in that the rules for assessing the merits changed in
the course of the assessment period.

Next, the applicant alleges an infringement of the GIP and of
the duty to state reasons. In particular, notwithstanding the
amendment to the applicant's duties and the lack of precise and
definitive objectives and assessment criteria, comments from
her CDR 2003 were copied into her CDR 2004, without
complying with the conditions laid down by the GIP for a
carryover.

the applicant

the contested decision
Lastly,
contains a manifest error of assessment and inconsistencies
between the marks awarded and the comments.

submits

that