Case F-54/06: Action brought on  10 May 2006  — Davis and Others v Council
Date: 2006-07-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European official, action by staff, equal pay, equal treatment, pension scheme, regulations for civil servants

C 154/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.7.2006

the applicant submits that

First of all,
in the documents
preparatory to her taking up her appointment the allowances
in question, being in the nature of pay, were expressly stated to
that she had
be payable in full notwithstanding the fact
declared that she was married to an official of the European
Union resident
in Brussels. She adds that her employment
contract was signed on 7 January 2004 on that basis and the
conditions of remuneration could not be changed unilaterally.

The applicant also alleges unlawfulness under Article 241 EC
and the third paragraph of Article 20 of the Decision on SNEs.
That provision discriminates in favour of individuals who opt
for a non-marital relationship as against members of a lawful
union. It also results in unequal treatment since it does not
allow the applicant to receive additional remuneration on an
equal footing with other SNEs, whether married or not. The
provision in question infringes Article 14 of
the Europen
Convention on Human Rights, Articles 2, 3, 13 and 141 EC
and Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 imple-
menting the principle of equal treatment between persons irre-
spective of racial or ethnic origin. (1)

(1) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, page 22.

Action brought on 10 May 2006 — Davis and Others v
Council

(Case F-54/06)

(2006/C 154/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

John Davis

(Bolton, United Kingdom), Svend
Applicants:
Mikkelsen (Sabro, Denmark), Dorrit Pedersen (Copenhagen,
Denmark)
and Margareta Strandberg (Axminster, United
Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis
and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the Council decisions determining the applicants'
pension entitlements, on the grounds that the portion of
their pension entitlement acquired after 30 April 2004 is
not multiplied by a correction coefficient, and that the
correction coefficient by which the portion of their pension
entitlement acquired before 30 April 2004 is multiplied
differs from that by which the remuneration of officials in
active employment in the United Kingdom or Denmark is
multiplied;

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, all former officials of the European Commu-
nities resident in the United Kingdom or Denmark, retired after
the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations.

In support of their action, they plead the illegality of Article 82
of the Staff Regulations, Articles 1(3) and 3(5) of Annex XI to
the Staff Regulations and of Article 20 of Annex XIII to the
Staff Regulations, which entered into force on 1 May 2004.

They also allege breach of the principle of equal treatment and
non-discrimination in that, under the abovementioned provi-
sions, officials who retired after 1 May 2004 do not enjoy the
guarantee of equivalent purchasing power irrespective of their
place of residence.
they do not enjoy
In the same way,
purchasing power equivalent to that of their colleagues with
the same income in active employment, their pension being
multiplied by a country-related correction coefficient while that
of their colleagues in active employment is multiplied by a
capital-related correction coefficient.

The applicants also allege breach of their vested rights and the
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in that
they were entitled to expect their pension entitlements to be
calculated in accordance with the rules which were in force
when they joined the service and throughout almost all their
career.

Lastly, they allege breach of the principle of freedom of move-
ment and establishment for workers, on the ground that the
the correction coefficient applicable to their
withdrawal of
entire pension means that
they are no longer guaranteed
freedom of establishment for their centre of interests, if they
are not, in some circumstances, to be penalised by a reduction
in their purchasing power as against that of their colleagues
resident in places with a lower cost of living.

Action brought on 2 May 2006 — de Albuquerque v
Commission

(Case F-55/06)

(2006/C 154/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Augusto de Albuquerque (Brussels, Belgium) (repre-
sented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities