Case F-48/06: Action brought on  5 May 2006  — Avanzata and Others v Commission
Date: 2006-07-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, equal pay, equal treatment, servant (EU)

C 154/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.7.2006

Form of order sought

— annul

the individual decisions rejecting the applicants'
requests that the appointing authority adopt transitional
measures in order to ensure, in the context of the 2005
and subsequent promotion exercises, equal treatment and
their acquired rights;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their application, the applicants claim that in
rejecting their requests that it adopt transitional measures with
the aim of taking account of their individual situations resulting
from the creation of supplementary grades, the defendant disre-
garded their right to reasonable career prospects in the same
conditions as their colleagues in the same category and also
their acquired rights, in so far as their career prospects were
significantly altered.

The applicants further plead an absence of relevant reasons, in
that the defendant did not respond to the pleas and arguments
set out in their requests and complaints.

Action brought on 5 May 2006 — Avanzata and Others v
Commission

(Case F-48/06)

(2006/C 154/60)

Language of the case: French

In support of their action, the applicants rely on a breach of
Article 80 of the Conditions of employment of other servants,
a breach of Article 2 of the Annex to those conditions of
employment, the illegality of the general implementing provi-
sions of those articles and also a breach of the principle of
equal treatment and non-discrimination, of transparency and of
sound management.

The applicants submit first of all that the defendant adopted
the general
implementing provisions without obtaining the
prior opinion of the Staff Regulations Committee. Furthermore,
the general implementing provisions do not contain a precise
description of the powers attaching to each type of duties,
which makes it impossible to ascertain whether the applicants
were appointed to a function group corresponding to the tasks
which they perform and whether their grade was fixed in
accordance with Article 80 of the conditions of employment.
Nor has the defendant adduced evidence that it did in fact
ascertain whether it was possible to award the applicants a
the reality of
supplementary grade to take account of
the
market, as provided for in the general
implementing provi-
sions.

Last, the applicants contend that they are in the same situation
as the staff employed in the crèches and the garderie in Brussels
and recruited as contract staff in the Office for Infrastructure
and Logistics in Brussels with a guarantee that their remunera-
tion would be maintained. The defendant has not shown for
what reasons such a guarantee was not given to the applicants.

Action brought on 9 May 2006 — Nijs v Court of Audi-
tors

(Case F-49/06)

(2006/C 154/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Eric Avanzata and Others (Beggent, France) (repre-
sented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Form of order sought

— Annul the applicant's contracts as contractual agents,

in
that they fix the applicants' function groups, grades, steps
and remuneration;

Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by:
F. Rollinger, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

Form of order sought

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, who entered the service of the Commission as
contract staff or workers under contracts governed by Luxem-
bourg law, dispute their classification and remuneration as
fixed by the Commission upon their appointment as contract
staff posted to the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in
Luxembourg (OIL).

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the Appointing Authority's decision not to promote
the applicant in 2005 and any connected and/or subsequent
decision;

— Order the payment of compensation for the material and

non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

— Order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.