Case F-69/06: Action brought on 23 June 2006 — Andersson and Others v Commission
Date: 2006-08-12
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, appointment of staff, equal treatment, promotion

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

C 190/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.8.2006

Form of order sought

— annul

the individual decisions rejecting the applicants'
requests that the Appointing Authority adopt transitional
measures in order to ensure, in the context of the 2005
and subsequent promotion exercises, equal treatment and
their acquired rights;

or to grade B*10, as appropriate, on their next promotion
and (2) order it to pay compensation for the loss suffered
by the applicants as a result of not having been promoted
to grade A*10 from 1 March 2005 or to grade B*10 from
1 January 2005, as appropriate;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants put forward pleas
identical to those put forward in Case F-45/06 (1).

In support of their action, the applicants put forward identical
pleas to those put forward in Case F-47/06 (1).

(1) OJ C 143, 17.06.2006, p. 39.

(1) OJ C 154, 1.07.2006, p. 25.

Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Baele and Others v
Commission

(Case F-70/06)

(2006/C 190/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Lebedef-Caponi v
Commission

(Case F-71/06)

(2006/C 190/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi
bourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

(Senningerberg, Luxem-

Applicants:
sented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers)

Jan Baele (Beernem, Belgium) and others (repre-

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Annul the refusal of the Appointing Authority to enter the
applicants on the list of officials promoted to grades A*10
and B*10 under the 2005 promotion exercise such as those
decisions implicitly result from Administrative Notice No
85-2005 of 23 November 2005;

— Inform the Appointing Authority of the consequences of
annulling the contested decisions, and in particular the
reclassification of the applicants' grades to grade A*10 with
retroactive effect from 1 March 2005 or to grade B*10
with retroactive effect from 1 January 2005, as appropriate;

— In the alternative: (1) request the defendant to acknowledge
that the applicants are eligible for promotion to grade A*10

— Annul the applicant's Career Development Report (CDR)

for the period 1.1.2004 — 31.12.2004

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action, the applicant puts forward three pleas
alleging:

— (1)

infringement of

the General provisions for

imple-
menting Article 43 of the Staff Regulations on the statutory
and trade union staff-representatives,
infringement of the
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of
the rule ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’,