Case F-11/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 June 2006 — Chassagne v Commission (Officials — Remuneration — Annual travel expenses — Provisions applicable before 1 May 2004 to officials originating from a French Overseas Department — Manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2006-08-12
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, equal treatment, regulations for civil servants

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/33

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of
28 June 2006 –Beau v Commission

(Case F-39/05) (1)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: Ch. Berardis-Kayser and K. Herrmann, Agents, and
by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

(Occupational disease — Refusal to recognise the occupa-
tional origin of the applicant's disease)

Re:

(2006/C 190/60)

Language of the case: French

Annulment of the decision of 6 October 2004 by which the
Commission established the applicant in her post as an official,
inasmuch as that decision incorporates a classification of grade
A*8, and the decision of 6 July 2005 rejecting the applicant's
complaint

Parties

Applicant(s): Yolande Beau (Paris, France)
Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

(represented by: G.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall and K. Herrmann, agents, assisted by F.
Longfils, lawyer)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of 3 August 2004 in which the
Commission of the European Communities refused to accede
to the request for recognition of the occupational origin of the
applicant's disease and charging to her the fees and incidental
costs of the doctor nominated by her and half of the fees and
incidental costs of the third doctor

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1. Dismisses the action.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 10 of 14.01.2006 (case initially registered before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities under number T-388/
05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by order
of 15.12.2005).

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29
June 2006 — Chassagne v Commission

2. Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.

(Case F-11/05) (1)

(1) OJ C 205 of 20.08.2005 (case initially registered before the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-
215/05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by
order of 15.12.2005).

(Officials — Remuneration — Annual travel expenses —
Provisions applicable before 1 May 2004 to officials origin-
ating from a French Overseas Department — Manifestly
inadmissible)

(2006/C 190/62)

Language of the case: French

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber)
of 28 June 2006 — Grünheid v Commission

(Case F-101/05) (1)

(Officials — Time-limit for complaint — Pay slip — Admis-
sibility — Appointment — Classification in the higher career
grad e — Articles 25, 26 and 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)

Parties

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

(represented

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Berscheid and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents)

(2006/C 190/61)

Re:

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sabine Grünheid (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by:
E. Boigelot, lawyer)

First, annulment of the decision of the Commission of the
European Communities refusing the applicant the benefit of
Article 8(1) to (3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations relating
to the rules on reimbursement of annual travel expenses, in the
version in force before 1 May 2004, and secondly, compensa-
tion for the damage which the applicant considers to have
suffered as a result of that refusal

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.