Case F-55/06: Action brought on  2 May 2006  — de Albuquerque v Commission
Date: 2006-07-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, reassignment, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

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

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/29

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 23 September 2005 of the Director-
in the
General of DG INFSO to transfer the applicant
interest of the service as head of unit INFSO.G.2 ‘Micro and
nanosystems’;

— annul

the appointing authority's express decision of 2
February 2006 giving a negative response to the applicant's
complain R/764/05;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission transferred in the
interest of the service to the post of head of unit INFSO.G.2
‘Micro and nanosystems’, claims that that transfer is contrary to
the interest of the service. He relies on a breach of Article 7 of
the Staff Regulations and a manifest error of assessment of the
concept of ‘interest of the service’, a misuse of powers and a
breach of the principle of equal treatment.

Action brought on 9 May 2006 — Chassagne v Commis-
sion

(Case F-56/06)

(2006/C 154/66)

Language of the case: French

— annul the appointing authority's decisions of 30 January
2006 and 14 March 2006 rejecting the applicant's
complains against the abovementioned decisions;

— award nominal damages of one euro for professional harm
and one euro for non-pecuniary harm arising from the
adoption of the contested decisions;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant relies first of all on the
unlawfulness of the General implementing provisions of Arti-
cles 43 and 44 of the Staff Regulations.

He claims, next, that there has been a breach of a number of
procedural requirements, such as the rights of the defence, the
obligation to state reasons and compliance with the rules of
procedure.

The applicant further maintains that the administration has
made a number of manifest errors of assessment, notably in the
context of considering comparative merits and in allocating
priority points.

Last, in the applicant's submission, the defendant has infringed
the principle of sound administration.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 May 2006 —
Eerola v Commission

Parties

Applicant: Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium)
by: S. Rodriques, Y. Minatchy and A. Jaume, lawyers)

(represented

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

(Case F -110/05) (1)

(2006/C 154/67)

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be
removed from the register.

— Annul the applicant's career development report for 2004;

— annul the Directorate-General's decision allocating priority

points during the 2005 promotion exercise;

(1) OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.