Case F-18/06: Action brought on  13 February 2006  — Duyster v Commission
Date: 2006-07-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, parental leave, regulations for civil servants

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/23

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 May 2006 —
Voigt v Commission

Form of order sought

(Case F-55/05) (1)

(Officials — Occupational disease — Absence of a decision
adversely affecting the applicant — Premature application —
Manifestly inadmissible)

(2006/C 154/54)

Language of the case: French

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul decision ADMIN.B.2. — D (05) 23023/EGL-ade of
12 October 2005, by which the Appointing Authority
the
rejected the applicant's complaint R/549/05 against
defendant's refusal, on 25 April 2005, of his request to be
granted the expatriation allowance (16 %);

— Order the defendant to grant the applicant the expatriation
allowance with retroactive effect from 1 March 2005, plus
interest for late payment at the annual rate of 10 %, until it
is paid in full;

Parties

Applicant: Eric Voigt
Autric, lawyer)

(Orange, France)

(represented by: B.

— Acknowledge the applicant's entitlement to the expatriation

allowance (16 % of the net basic salary) in the future.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall and K. Herrmann, Agents, assisted by F.
Longfils, lawyer)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Re:

Application, first, for recognition of the occupational origin of
the disease from which the applicant is suffering and, second,
damages for the harm which he claims to have sustained

Operative part of the order

1. The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

2. The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay half of

those incurred by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 229, 17.9.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities under No T-258/05
and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by
order of 15.12.2005).

The applicant, a Commission official employed in Luxembourg,
contests the decision refusing him payment of the expatriation
allowance. He disputes the defendant's argument that he does
not meet the conditions referred to in Article 4(1)(a) of Annex
VII to the Staff Regulations by reason of the fact that, during a
period of five years ending six months before his engagement
by the Community institutions, he was a permanent resident in
Luxembourg and carried on there his usual main occupation.

The applicant also claims that the work he carried out in
Luxembourg in the defendant's building, during which he was
employed by a company governed by private law, should be
regarded as falling within the derogation provided for in the
second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regu-
lations.

Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Duyster v
Commission

Action brought on 19 December 2005 — Kyriazis v
Commission

(Case F-120/05)

(2006/C 154/55)

Language of the case: Greek

(Case F-18/06)

(2006/C 154/56)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Antonios Kyriazis (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (repre-
sented by: M. Spanakis, lawyer)

Applicant: Tinike Duyster (Oetrange, Luxembourg) (represented
by: W.H.A.M. van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

C 154/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.7.2006

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 17 November
leave from 8

2005 to send the applicant on parental
November 2004 until an unspecified date;

— Annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 6 April 2005;

— Annul

the decision to grant parental

leave from 1
November 2004 to 30 April 2005 inclusive, and/or the
salary slip for November 2004, and/or the Commission's
decision of 30 November 2004 not to take account of the
request for deferment or cancellation of the parental leave;

— Find that from 1 November 2004 (or 8 November 2004)
until 30 April 2005 inclusive the applicant had all the
substantive rights connected with the active service of an
official and that therefore payment according to her grade
and step must be made to her with retroactive effect;

— Find that this payment must be made with interest for late

payment;

— Find that the applicant may still request parental leave (even
if, after the date when judgment is delivered, her son is
more than or nearly 12 years old) since the failure to
approve the request submitted is the Commission's fault;
alternatively, that, since the Commission is responsible for
the applicant's inability to take parental leave, she must be
paid compensation corresponding to the loss of the benefits
for parental
seniority, pension rights,
appraisal reports and promotion opportunities; or, in the
further alternative, that she must be paid damages for the
period of parental leave not taken for loss of the benefits
for parental leave, insurance and pension rights;

insurance,

leave,

— Order the defendant to pay compensation for the material
and non-material damage caused by the decision of 17
November 2005, assessed at EUR 4 000 and EUR 5 000
respectively;

— Order the defendant to pay EUR 2 500 as compensation
for the uncertainty caused to the applicant regarding her
status as an official and the non-material damage resulting
from that uncertainty;

— Compensate the applicant for the value of seven days of

parental leave;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(ii)

example, an incorrect statement about a Court of First Instance
case;
is inaccurate for a number of reasons including,
among others, a failure to specify on which of the applicant's
complaints the decision is based, a failure to include the date of
the end of the parental leave and a failure to include a descrip-
tion of the decision's effects; (iii) is drafted in a language other
than that used by the applicant, in breach of Article 21 EC; (iv)
does not cite any legal basis; (v) contains contradictions; (vi)
states insufficient reasons; (vii) has retroactive effect although
there was no longer any application for parental leave pending;
(viii)
fails to take account of the fact that the Appointing
Authority's original decisions over the whole period were
unlawful; (ix) takes no account of the application to defer the
parental leave.

Furthermore, the wording of the contested decision creates the
impression that the applicant is at least in part responsible for
the muddle, whereas she has acted very carefully and produced
a large number of documents.

(1) OJ C 217, 3.9.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities under number T-249/
05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by
order of 15.12.2005).

Action brought on 3 February 2006 — Michail v Commis-
sion

(Case F-34/06)

(2006/C 154/57)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Christos Michail (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
C. Meïdanis, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

In Case F-51/05, (1) the applicant already challenged the fact
that the Commission granted her parental leave for the period
from 1 November 2004 to 30 April 2005. In this case, she
challenges the Appointing Authority's decision, taken in the
meantime, of 17 November 2005, which set the date of the
start of the parental leave as 8 November 2004.

— Annul the applicant's Career Development Report (CDR)
for the year 2004, as established by the SYSPER2 system in
which it is included;

— Annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 4 November

2005 rejecting the applicant's complaints;

In support of her action, the applicant submits that the decision
of 17 November 2005 infringed the Treaty, the Staff Regula-
tions and a number of legal principles. In particular, according
to the applicant, that decision: (i) contains errors including, for

— Order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-
material damage suffered by the applicant, amounting to
EUR 120 000;

— Make an appropriate order as to costs.