Case F-47/06: Action brought on  8 May 2006  — Aimi and Others v Commission
Date: 2006-07-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, appointment of staff, equal treatment, promotion

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/25

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official in Grade A*12, challenges the validity
of the CDR which the defendant established for him for the
year 2004. In support of his action, he submits, first, that that
CDR assesses and includes a statement of reasons only for the
period from 1 May 2004 to 31 December 2004 inclusive,
while the first four months of that year were not taken into
account, even by means of a reference to the mark in the
interim note specifically covering that period. That omission
constitutes an infringement of Article 4(3) of the General Provi-
sions for Implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. The
applicant adds that, in any event, the interim note was drawn
up by an authority without the power to do so.

Next, the applicant claims that in the second part of 2004 his
superiors only entrusted him with tasks of a circumstantial or
ancillary nature which were of no use for the purpose of
drawing up a CDR for an official of his grade.

The applicant alleges, lastly, infringement of Article 12a of the
Staff Regulations on psychological harassment.

Action brought on 26 April 2003 — C v Commission

(Case F-44/06)

(2006/C 154/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: C (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and
J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul

the Appointing Authority's decision of 13 June
2005 refusing to adopt any measure to comply with the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities of 23 November 2004 in Case T-376/02 O v
Commission (1);

— Annul the decision of the Director of DG ADMIN/C: Social
welfare policy, Luxembourg staff, health, safety of 23
February 2006 compulsorily retiring the applicant with
entitlement to an invalidity pension to be determined in
accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of
Article 78 of the Staff Regulations, with retroactive effect
from 1 February 2002;

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant a sum assessed on
equitable grounds at EUR 15 000 on account of breach of

the principle that decisions must be adopted within a
reasonable time;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following the judgment in O v Commission, cited above, the
applicant applied for the adoption by the Appointing Authority
of measures to comply with that judgment. When that applica-
tion was rejected, the applicant made a complaint, which was,
in its turn, rejected in part by a decision of 11 January 2006.
The Appointing Authority then adopted a new decision, dated
23 February 2006, compulsorily retiring the applicant with
entitlement
to an invalidity pension to be determined in
accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of
Article 78 of the Staff Regulations, with retroactive effect from
1 February 2002.

In support of his action, the applicant submits, first, that the
last decision does not constitute full compliance with the judg-
ment referred to above, in that it does not restore the applicant
to his legal position before the adoption of
the decision
annulled by the Court of First Instance.

Also, the decision of 23 February 2006 infringes Article 53 of
the Staff Regulations, which provides that an official to whom
the Invalidity Committee finds that the provisions of Article 78
apply must automatically be retired on the last day of the
month in which the Appointing Authority recognises his
permanent incapacity to perform his duties.

Lastly, the applicant alleges breach of the principle that deci-
sions must be adopted within a reasonable time, inasmuch as
the decision of 23 February was adopted 15 months after the
abovementioned judgment was delivered.

(1) ECR SC [2004] I-A-349 and II-1595.

Action brought on 8 May 2006 — Aimi and Others v
Commission

(Case F-47/06)

(2006/C 154/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Naomi Aimi
sented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

(Evere, Belgium) and Others (repre-

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

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.