Case F-52/06: Action brought on 21 April 2006 — Pimlott v Europol
Date: 2006-08-12
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Europol, action by staff, servant (EU), work contract

C 190/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.8.2006

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

1. The action is dismissed, in part, as manifestly inadmissible and,

in part, as manifestly unfounded.

2. Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.

2. Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 115 of 14.5.2006 (case initially registered before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities under number T-123/
05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by order
of 15.12.2005).

(1) OJ C 315 of 10.12.2005 (case initially registered before the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-
349/05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by
order of 15.12.2005).

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of
30 June 2006 — Ott and Others v Commission

Action brought on 21 April 2006 — Pimlott v Europol

(Case F-87/05) (1)

(Officials — Promotion for 2004 — Non-inclusion on the
list of officials promoted — Article 111 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Court of First Instance — Action, in part,
manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded )

(Case F-52/06)

(2006/C 190/64)

Language of the case: Dutch

(2006/C 190/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mike
Kingdom) (represented by: D.C. Coppens, lawyer)

Pimlott

(Porchester, Hampshire, United

Parties

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Applicants: Martial Ott
(Oberanven, Luxembourg), Fernando
Lopez Tola (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Francis Weiler (Itzig,
Luxembourg)
(represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti,
lawyers)

Form of order sought

— Annul Europol's decision of 25 January 2006;

Defendant: Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and
D. Martin, Agents)

Re:

First, annulment of
the decision of 30 November 2004,
published in Administrative Notice No 130 2004 of 30
November 2004, in which the Commission of the European
Communities set out the list of officials promoted in 2004,
since that list does not include the names of the applicants,
and, secondly, in the alternative, annulment of the allocation of
promotion points for 2004.

— Order Europol

for a
period of four years, from 1 January 2006 to 31 December
2010;

to renew the applicant's contract

— Order Europol to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, after having been first engaged by Europol on 1
January 2000 for a period initially fixed at four years, was
employed from 1 January 2002 in a different position within
the same bureau, under a new contract, which was to end on
31 December 2005.

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/35

In his action, the applicant challenges Europol's decision to
renew that contract for two years only. He claims that, from
the time he took up his new post under the new contract,
Europol should have treated him not as a staff member to
whom the authorities of his State of origin had granted unpaid
special leave, but as a staff member who was no longer linked
to those authorities. The distinction is relevant because, in the
first case, the second indent of Article 6 of the Staff Regulations
for a
applicable to Europol employees, permitting renewal
period of two years, is to be applied, while in the second case
the third indent of that provision, permitting renewal for a
period of four years, is to be applied.

The applicant submits that in 2002 he severed all ties with his
original employer in the United Kingdom and that he was
persuaded that the latter would amend the staff roll as a result.
Even were it to be established that, in fact, the United Kingdom
authorities did not remove him from that roll, the applicant
claims that he himself should not in any event have to bear the
consequences of that negligence.

Action brought on 16 May 2006 — Balázs Dániel Simon v
Court of Justice and Commission

(Case F-58/06)

(2006/C 190/65)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant(s): Balázs Dániel Simon (Brussels (Belgium))
sented by: György Magyar, lawyer)

(repre-

Defendant: Court of
the European Communities
(represented by: Marc Schauss) and Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

Justice of

Form of order sought

— annul

in their entirety the decision of

the appointing
authority of the Court of Justice of 21 July 2005 rejecting
the applicant's request to be transferred, the decision of 27
September 2005 confirming that decision and the decision
of 15 February 2006 rejecting the complaint lodged by the
applicant against the previous decisions, and also the deci-
sion of the appointing authority of the Commission of 3
October 2005 rejecting the applicant's appointment and

the decision of 16 February 2006 rejecting the complaint
lodged by the applicant against that decision;

— order the defendants to make good the harm caused to the

applicant by the annulled decisions, and

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is currently an official of the Commission,
took up a post at the Court of Justice as a lawyer/linguist in
Grade A*7 following competition EPSO/LA/12/03. He applied
for a vacant post at
the Commission and in May 2005
requested to be transferred. The Court rejected his request. The
applicant again submitted his candidature to the Commission
after
the Commission had published a vacancy notice.
Although the Commission chose the applicant for that post, it
did not take the measures necessary for his transfer. Then, after
the applicant left the service of the Court, the Commission
engaged him as a successful candidate in competition EPSO/A/
4/03 in Grade A*5 with effect from 2 March 2006.

The applicant seeks annulment of the decisions of 21 July
2005, 27 September 2005, 3 October 2005 and 16 February
2006; he relies on a failure to state reasons, a manifest error of
assessment and a misuse of powers. The applicant also claims,
in support of his application for annulment of those decisions,
that
there has been a breach of Regulation (EC, Euratom)
No 723/2004 and of the principles of protection of legitimate
expectations and non-discrimination. He seeks annulment of
the Commission of the Court of 15 February 2006 on the basis
of a manifest error of assessment.

Action brought on 23 June 2006 — Andersson and Others
v Commission

(Case F-69/06)

(2006/C 190/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Tommy Andersson (Brussels, Belgium) and Others
(represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities