Case F-68/06: Action brought on 22 June 2006 — Bakema v Commission
Date: 2006-09-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), work contract

C 212/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.9.2006

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of
13 July 2006 — E v Commission

Form of order sought

(Case F-5/06) (1)

(Officials — Lawfulness of internal procedures — Allegedly
wrongful conduct of officials in the context of disciplinary
proceedings and of a procedure for recognition of the occupa-
tional nature of a disease — Compensation for damage —
Admissibility — Interest in bringing proceedings — Confir-
matory act)

(2006/C 212/84)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: E (London, United Kingdom)
Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

(represented by: S.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall and V. Joris, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of
the Appointing Authority's decision of 4
October 2005 dismissing the applicant's complaint concerning
the checking of the lawfulness of disciplinary proceedings and
of a procedure for recognition of the applicant's occupational
disease, and a claim for damages.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as clearly inadmissible.

2. The parties shall each bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

— Annul the decision of the authority authorised to conclude
contracts of employment (AACC) dated 22 March 2006;

— Order the AACC to engage the applicant in function group

IV, grade 16;

— Declare that the applicant must be granted an adequate

sum by way of damages.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former member of the so-called local technical
assistance staff (ALAT), has been engaged as a member of the
contract staff and classified in function group IV, grade 14.

In his action, the applicant claims that the defendant made
inaccurate application of the relevant legislation, especially of
Article 82 (2) (c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other
Servants of the Communities (CEOS) and Article 2 of General
applicant
Implementation Provisions
submits
term
the
‘diploma’ contained in those articles is inaccurate and arbitrary.
In the calculation of his professional experience, the defendant
should have taken into consideration all the activities the appli-
cant carried out after obtaining his ‘kandidaatsdiploma’.

(GIP) 49-2004. The
interpretation of

the defendant's

that

The applicant further claims that, even if he used to be a
member of ALAT before his engagement as a member of
contract staff, the principle laid down in Article 86 of the
CEOS should be applied to his case. According to that prin-
ciple, where an agent moves to a new post within a function
group, he shall not be classified in a lower grade or step than
in his former post.

Action brought on 17 July 2006 — Lofaro v Commission

(Case F-75/06)

(2006/C 212/86)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 22 June 2006 — Bakema v Commission

(Case F-68/06)

(2006/C 212/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Lofaro (Brussels, Belgium)
by: J.-L. Laffineur, lawyer)

(represented

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Form of order sought

Applicant: Reint
(represented by: L. Rijpkema, lawyer)

Jacob Bakema (Zuidlaren,

the Netherlands)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— annul the decision of 28 September 2005 to dismiss the
applicant at the end of his probationary period and the
report at the expiry of the probationary period on which
that decision was based;