Case F-63/06: Action brought on  5 May 2006  — Mascheroni v Commission
Date: 2006-07-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, personnel administration, psychological harassment, staff assessment

C 178/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.7.2006

Action brought on 12 May 2006 — Hinderyckx v Council

assessment of the merits. The absence of such rules has led the
Council to adopt decisions of a discretionary nature.

(Case F-57/06)

(2006/C 178/78)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 5 May 2006 — Mascheroni v Commis-
sion

Parties

Applicant: Jacques Hinderyckx (Brussels, Belgium) (represented
by: J.A. Martin, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

(Case F-63/06)

(2006/C 178/79)

Language of the case: Italian

Form of order sought

Parties

— Annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade

B*8 in the 2005 promotions procedure;

Applicant: Luigi Mascheroni (Vergiate, Italy) (represented by: A.
Vianello and G. Orelli, lawyers)

— Promote the applicant to grade B*8;

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— Order the defendant to pay to the applicant EUR 2 400 in

compensation for all damage suffered;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who entered into the service of the European
Parliament on 1 April 1994, was transferred to the General
Secretariat of the Council on 16 July 2004, as a grade B*7 offi-
cial. In his application, he disputes the Appointing Authority's
decision not to promote him to grade B*8 in the 2005 promo-
tions procedure.

— Find and declare that the conduct of the applicant's hier-

archical superior is unlawful.

— Find and declare that such conduct is harmful and that the

applicant suffered serious harm as a result thereof.

— Declare that the applicant is entitled to be assisted by the
Community in the proceedings that he intends to bring
before the national court in respect of the harm suffered.

— Order the defendant to pay the costs

The applicant raises two pleas, the first of which is based on
the combination of his length of service in the grade and the
excellence of his services to the European Parliament.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In relation to his second plea, the applicant claims that the
Appointing Authority should have explained how the proce-
dure used by the Consultative Commission on Promotions
(CCP) took into account the differences between the structures
of the standard Staff Reports of the European Parliament and
the Council. The applicant further maintains that in order to
ensure equal opportunity between candidates coming from
different institutions, the Council should have provided itself
with precise rules, in compliance with the Staff Regulations and
capable of guaranteeing equal treatment in the comparative

In support of his action, the applicant claims that the conduct
of his hierarchical superior was assessed by the appointing
authority on the basis of unsubstantiated claims. The
appointing authority moreover infringed various principles of
law, such as the principles of non-discrimination, proportion-
ality, non-abuse of powers, impartiality, objectivity, coherence,
fairness and reasonableness.