Case F-36/06: Action brought on  5 April 2006  — Martin Magone v Commission
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, damages, personnel administration, psychological harassment, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

C 131/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

Action brought on 21 March 2006 — Campoli v Commis-
sion

Action brought on 5 April 2006 — Martin Magone v
Commission

(Case F-33/06)

(2006/C 131/94)

Language of the case: French

(Case F-36/06)

(2006/C 131/95)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Franco Campoli (London, United Kingdom) (repre-
sented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, avocats)

Parties

Applicant(s): Alejandro Martin Magone (Brussels, Belgium)
(represented by: E. Boigelot, avocat)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Annul, first, the decision of the Appointing Authority chal-
lenged in the complaint brought by the applicant on 10
August 2005 which,
from 1 May 2004, amended the
correction coefficient, the household allowance and the flat-
rate education allowance applicable to the applicant's
pension and, second, the applicant's salary statements in so
far as they apply that decision with effect from March
2005;

— Specify to the Appointing Authority the effects of

the
annulment of the contested decisions, and in particular the
application of
the household
the correction coefficient,
allowance and the flat-rate education allowance applicable
to the applicant's pension before 1 May 2004, and with
retroactive effect from 1 May 2004;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant advances pleas very
similar to those which he had already advanced in Case T-135/
05 (1).

(1) OJ C 132 of 28.05.2005, p. 33.

— Annul the decision of 7 June 2005 of the Director General
of ECHO in his capacity as Appeal Assessor which was
flawed in so far as it definitively confirms and approves the
applicant's Career Development Report
the
period from 1 January 2004 to 15 September 2004;

(CDR)

for

— Annul the disputed CDR;

— Annul

the decision of 22 December 2005 of

the
Appointing Authority,
received on 5 January 2006,
rejecting the complaint brought under Article 90(2) of the
Staff Regulations of Officials on 6 September 2005 and
seeking annulment of the contested decision;

— Declare that the applicant is the victim of harassment at

work;

— Award damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss, loss
of career prospects, equitable damages in the sum of
EUR 29 000 or in an amount to be assessed by the Court;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant alleges an infringement
of Article 12a, the second paragraph of Article 25, Article 26
and Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of the rules for
implementing Article 43, as adopted by the Commission on 3
March 2004, an infringement of the Commission decision of
28 April 2004 guaranteeing rates of pay, of the Administrative
Guide and of the Guidelines in that regard, misuse of powers
and infringement of the general principles of law,
including
respect for the rights of the defence, the principle of sound
administration and the duty to have regard to the welfare of
individuals, the principle of equality and infringement of the
principles which impose a duty on the Appointing Authority
to adopt decisions only on the basis of
legally admissible
grounds, that is which are relevant and not vitiated by manifest
errors of assessment of fact or law.

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.