Case F-40/06: Action brought on  8 April 2006  — Luigi Mancuccio v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-06-17
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, damage, indemnification

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/37

Action brought on 14 April 2006 — Irène Bianchi v Euro-
pean Training Foundation

(Case F-38/06)

(2006/C 143/71)

Language of the case: French

applicant's expertise with respect, in particular, to administra-
tive assistant posts resulting from the reform, the manner in
which the applicant performed her duties and the interest of
the service.

In support of her action for compensation, the applicant claims
that the illegalities of the contested decision constitute wrongful
acts which have caused her and are still likely to cause her
serious pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

Parties

Applicant:
Lucas, lawyer)

Irène Bianchi

(Turin,

Italy)

(represented by: M.-A.

Defendant: European Training Foundation

Action brought on 8 April 2006 — Luigi Mancuccio v
Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

— annul the decision of the Director of the Foundation not to
employment as a
renew the applicant's
temporary agent, which was notified to her by memor-
andum of 24 October 2005;

contract of

— order the Foundation to compensate for the pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant, together
with statutory interest;

Parties

(Case F-40/06)

(2006/C 143/72)

Language of the case: Italian

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Applicant: Luigi Mancuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: V.
Messa, lawyer)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The applicant, who was engaged by the Foundation in 2000
under a contract of employment as a temporary agent
concluded initially for a period of three years and subsequently
renewed until 15 April 2006, contests the decision not to
renew her contract of employment beyond that date.

The applicant puts forward four pleas in law in support of her
action for annulment. The first plea alleges infringement of the
general principle of the rights of the defence and of Article 26
of the Staff Regulations, in that the negative evaluations which
the Head of the Finance Unit sent to the Director of the Foun-
dation were not sent to the applicant or placed in her personal
file.

The second plea alleges infringement of the obligation to state
reasons arising from the decision of the Director of the Founda-
tion of 26 February 1997 pertaining to the renewal of
contracts and of the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff
Regulations, in that the applicant was not informed sufficiently
of the reasons for the contested decision.

The third plea alleges a number of procedural infringements
established by the aforementioned decision of 26 February
1997.

The fourth plea alleges manifest errors of assessment which the
Director of the Foundation made as to the necessity for the

Form of order sought

— annul the implied decision by which the applicant's request
dated 1 March 2005 to the Appointing Authority to have
sent to him a certified copy of the original of the bill of
lading relating to the presumed dispatching of his personal
effects from Angola to Italy;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of
damages for the losses resulting from the adoption of the
contested act, the amount of EUR 10 000, or an amount to
be assessed by the Court;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former Commission official who took retire-
ment on 30 May 2005, requested from that institution the bill
of lading for his personal effects and property assigned to his
residence in Angola,
the country to which he had been
assigned as an economic advisor with the Commission's delega-
tion.

C 143/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.6.2006

In May 2003, the defendant was arranging for the removal
from the official lodgings assigned to the applicant, who main-
tains that only part of his personal effects were collected for
removal. By memorandum of 16 May 2005, the defendant
informed the applicant that his personal effects and his auto-
mobile had been sent to Italy and asked him to contact the
shipping agent to arrange for delivery.

By letter of 1 March 2005, the applicant requested, inter alia, a
detailed list of what had been delivered to him, and also a copy
of the bill of lading. That request was not answered, as indi-
cated in the claim brought by the applicant on 2 September
2005.

In support of his action, the applicant states that the implied
decision to reject his claim is illegitimate on grounds of abso-
lute failure to state reasons, infringement of the law, infringe-
ment of the obligation to have due regard to the welfare of offi-
cials,
the principle of sound
transparency,
administration, and also the principle of neminem laedere.

the principle of

Action brought on 21 April 2006 — Tuomo Talvela v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-43/06)

(2006/C 143/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Tuomo Talvela (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: E.
Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

— annul the applicant's Career Development Review (CDR) for
the period from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004,
and also the decision of 31 August 2005 of the appeal
assessor confirming and definitively approving the said
CDR;

— annul the implicit decision to reject the applicant's request
of 25 February 2005 and also any act subsequent and/or
relating to that decision;

— annul the decision of 11 January 2006 of the Appointing
Authority, received on 13 January 2006, rejecting the
complaint lodged by the applicant on 23 September 2005
and seeking to have the contested decisions annulled;

— award damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss and
also for loss of career prospects, evaluated on equitable
principles at EUR 4 000 and subject to amendment in the
course of the proceedings;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant pleads, first,
infringement of the second para-
graph of Article 25, Article 26 and Article 43 of the Staff
Regulations, and also of the general implementing provisions
relating to the application of Article 43, as adopted by the
defendant on 3 March 2004, of the specific rules for staff
assigned to the External Service and of the Guide to staff
reports.

He also claims that the defendant infringed the general imple-
menting provisions adopted by it on 28 April 2004 concerning
the conduct of administrative investigations and disciplinary
proceedings.

infringement of

Next, he alleges
the essential procedural
requirements, disregard of the general principles of law, such as
the rights of the defence, the principle of sound administration
and the duty to pay due regard to the welfare of officials, the
principle of
the
Appointing Authority to adopt a decision solely on legally
valid grounds, that is, grounds which are relevant and not
vitiated by manifest errors of assessment, fact or law.

and those

treatment

requiring

equal

for

in the

the 2004 exercise

the applicant claims that by adopting the disputed
Lastly,
assessment
circumstances
described, the Appointing Authority manifestly failed to make
a correct application and interpretation of the provisions of the
Staff Regulations and of the abovementioned principles.
Its
decision is therefore based on reasons which are incorrect both
in fact and in law. The applicant has therefore been placed in
an administrative situation which is both discriminatory and
contrary to his legitimate expectations and interests.