Case F-53/06: Action brought on  30 April 2006  — Claudia Gualtieri v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-07-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, regulations for civil servants

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/27

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant relies on:

— fourth, breach of the principle of protection of legitimate
expectations and of the rule patere legem quam ipse fecisti;

— fifth, breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of

1. The effects for the 2004 appraisal exercise of a falsification

of his staff report relating to the 2003 exercise,

officials.

2. Breach of the principles of legal certainty for staff, equal
treatment of officials and sound administration in the appli-
cation to the applicant of the new appraisal system devel-
oped by the defendant,

3. The fact that one of his colleagues was unlawfully asked to

carry out more senior duties on a temporary basis,

4. The fact that one of his hierarchical superiors carried out

his duties unlawfully,

5. That superior's lack of integrity,

6. Several instances of misuse of powers and a breach of the

Treaty.

Action brought on 3 May 2006 — Lebedef-Caponi v
Commission

(Case F-50/06)

(2006/C 154/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi
bourg) (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

(Senningerberg, Luxem-

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the applicant's career development report for the

period 1.7.2001 to 31.12.2002;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 30 April 2006 — Claudia Gualtieri v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-53/06)

(2006/C 154/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Claudia Gualtieri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
P. Gualtieri and M. Gualtieri, Lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the decision adopted by the Director-General
of Personnel and Administration on 30 January 2006
rejecting complaint No R/783/05, registered on 17 October
2005, seeking annulment of the decision adopted by the
DG ADMIN, communicated on 5 September 2005, by
which the applicant's claim that she was entitled to the full
daily subsistence allowance was rejected;

— annulment of the decision communicated on 5 September

2005;

— annulment of all of

the defendant's communications
received each month relating to the determination of the
allowance in question;

— an order that the defendant pay the applicant, with effect
from 1 January 2004 until 31 December 2005, the daily
subsistence allowance and the monthly allowance provided
for by the Commission Decision on Seconded National
Experts (SNEs);

— in the alternative, an order that the defendant pay the appli-
cant the abovementioned allowances with effect from 2
February 2005, the date of the applicant's de facto separa-
tion from her husband and the date when she ceased to live
in the further alternative, from the 4 July
with him, or,
2005, the date when the divorce petition was lodged with
the District Court Brussels, until 31 December 2005;

In support of her action, the applicant puts forward five pleas
in law, alleging:

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— first, breach of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations;

— second, breach of the general implementing provisions of

Article 43 of the Staff Regulations;

— third, breach of the principle of the prohibition of arbitrary
process and of the principle of the prohibition of misuse of
powers and breach of the obligation to state reasons;

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a national expert on secondment
to the
Commission, complains that it was unlawful to reduce to 25 %
the daily subsistence allowance provided for under the rules on
SNEs and to fail to pay the further monthly allowance also
provided for under those rules.

C 154/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.7.2006

the applicant submits that

First of all,
in the documents
preparatory to her taking up her appointment the allowances
in question, being in the nature of pay, were expressly stated to
that she had
be payable in full notwithstanding the fact
declared that she was married to an official of the European
Union resident
in Brussels. She adds that her employment
contract was signed on 7 January 2004 on that basis and the
conditions of remuneration could not be changed unilaterally.

The applicant also alleges unlawfulness under Article 241 EC
and the third paragraph of Article 20 of the Decision on SNEs.
That provision discriminates in favour of individuals who opt
for a non-marital relationship as against members of a lawful
union. It also results in unequal treatment since it does not
allow the applicant to receive additional remuneration on an
equal footing with other SNEs, whether married or not. The
provision in question infringes Article 14 of
the Europen
Convention on Human Rights, Articles 2, 3, 13 and 141 EC
and Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 imple-
menting the principle of equal treatment between persons irre-
spective of racial or ethnic origin. (1)

(1) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, page 22.

Action brought on 10 May 2006 — Davis and Others v
Council

(Case F-54/06)

(2006/C 154/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

John Davis

(Bolton, United Kingdom), Svend
Applicants:
Mikkelsen (Sabro, Denmark), Dorrit Pedersen (Copenhagen,
Denmark)
and Margareta Strandberg (Axminster, United
Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis
and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the Council decisions determining the applicants'
pension entitlements, on the grounds that the portion of
their pension entitlement acquired after 30 April 2004 is
not multiplied by a correction coefficient, and that the
correction coefficient by which the portion of their pension
entitlement acquired before 30 April 2004 is multiplied
differs from that by which the remuneration of officials in
active employment in the United Kingdom or Denmark is
multiplied;

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, all former officials of the European Commu-
nities resident in the United Kingdom or Denmark, retired after
the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations.

In support of their action, they plead the illegality of Article 82
of the Staff Regulations, Articles 1(3) and 3(5) of Annex XI to
the Staff Regulations and of Article 20 of Annex XIII to the
Staff Regulations, which entered into force on 1 May 2004.

They also allege breach of the principle of equal treatment and
non-discrimination in that, under the abovementioned provi-
sions, officials who retired after 1 May 2004 do not enjoy the
guarantee of equivalent purchasing power irrespective of their
place of residence.
they do not enjoy
In the same way,
purchasing power equivalent to that of their colleagues with
the same income in active employment, their pension being
multiplied by a country-related correction coefficient while that
of their colleagues in active employment is multiplied by a
capital-related correction coefficient.

The applicants also allege breach of their vested rights and the
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in that
they were entitled to expect their pension entitlements to be
calculated in accordance with the rules which were in force
when they joined the service and throughout almost all their
career.

Lastly, they allege breach of the principle of freedom of move-
ment and establishment for workers, on the ground that the
the correction coefficient applicable to their
withdrawal of
entire pension means that
they are no longer guaranteed
freedom of establishment for their centre of interests, if they
are not, in some circumstances, to be penalised by a reduction
in their purchasing power as against that of their colleagues
resident in places with a lower cost of living.

Action brought on 2 May 2006 — de Albuquerque v
Commission

(Case F-55/06)

(2006/C 154/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Augusto de Albuquerque (Brussels, Belgium) (repre-
sented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities