Case F-34/06: Action brought on  3 February 2006  — Michail v Commission
Date: 2006-07-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, administrator, professional career, psychological harassment, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

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.

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