Case F-55/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of  16 May 2006  — Voigt v Commission (Officials — Occupational disease — Absence of a decision adversely affecting the applicant — Premature application — Manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2006-07-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, occupational disease, personnel administration

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