Case F-92/06: Action brought on 11 August 2006 — Magdalena Antas v Council of the European Union
Date: 2006-09-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Council of the European Union, action by staff, job access, servant (EU), social security, unemployment insurance

30.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/21

— in providing for the award of transitional priority points
based only on seniority within a grade during the 2005
promotion year, Article 13(3) of
the Rules for Imple-
menting Article 45 infringes Article 9 of the Staff Regula-
tions;

that have fewer

— in providing for more favourable treatment for officials of
Directorates-General or
staff,
services
including the staff of the Private Offices of Members of the
Commission, Article 6(2) of
the General Provisions for
Implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations infringes
Article 45 of those Regulations as well as the principle that
officials should have reasonable career prospects, and the
principle of equal treatment.

Action brought on 11 August 2006 — Magdalena Antas v
Council of the European Union

(Case F-92/06)

(2006/C 237/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Magdalena Antas (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by:
S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Action brought 11 August 2006 — Nolin v Commission

Defendant: Council of the European Union

(Case F-91/06)

(2006/C 237/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Michel Nolin (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S.
Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the Council's decision rejecting the applicant's claim
for damages for suffering caused by the successive errors
made by the institution;

— fix a time-limit for the parties so as to allow them to agree
level of compensation for the damage

on the correct
suffered by the applicant;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the appeal assessor's decision, of 8 April 2006,
setting out the applicant's Career Progress Report (CPR) for
the 2005 assessment exercise;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant claims that the defendant
erred in law, in as far as some essential tasks and points relating
to his work were not mentioned by the assessor and no
comments on those tasks are made in his CPR. That situation is
due to serious inconsistencies and inadequacies comparable to
manifest errors of fact in the consideration of the factors rele-
vant to his assessment.

Furthermore,
the applicant considers that, despite the two
changes made by the assessor in his comments as compared
with the 2003 reference exercise, the applicant's report from
the previous year was repeated, in breach of Article 5 of the
general provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regula-
tions, whilst significant changes in the applicant's functions had
taken place and the repetition of the previous year's report had
taken place without the applicant's consent.

employment. Subsequently,

The applicant took up her duties as a member of the auxiliary
staff in the General Secretariat of the Council on 1 November
2003 and her contract ended on 31 March 2005. From 1
January 2005, the Council automatically affiliated her to the
compulsory Belgian social security scheme for the last three
months of her
the Council
informed the applicant of her affiliation to the abovementioned
scheme with retroactive effect, dated back to the day on which
she took up her duties. However, according to the applicant, as
a result of the lateness of her affiliation, she was unable to
meet the conditions for receiving Belgian unemployment bene-
fits, as laid down in the Belgian Royal Decree of 25 November
1991 on the regulation of unemployment (1). She was therefore
unable to prove that she had sufficient means to be granted a
residence permit that would allow her to remain in Belgium for
more than three months, in accordance with Article 7 of Direc-
tive 2004/38/EC (2). Furthermore, the lateness of the affiliation
deprived her of the right that she would have enjoyed under
Annex XII of the Treaty of Accession of Poland to the Euro-
pean Union of access to the Belgian labour market.

In support of her application, the applicant pleads first of all
infringement of Article 70 of the Conditions of Employment of
other servants of the European Communities, which lays down
to a
the institution's obligation to affiliate auxiliary staff
compulsory social security scheme and to take responsibility
for the employer's contributions required under the legislation
in force.

C 237/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.9.2006

Next, the applicant claims infringement of Articles 4 and 8 of
the Belgian Royal Decree of 5 November 2002 establishing an
immediate declaration of employment (3).

notice COM/229/04 for the recruitment of the Head of the
Commission Delegation to Morocco (1). His application being
successful, he was appointed a probationary official in Grade
A*14, step 2.

Finally, the applicant relies on infringement of the duty to have
regard for the welfare of officials.

(1) Moniteur belge of 31 December 1991, p. 29888.
(2) Directive 2004/38/EC of

the European Parliament and of

the
Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and
their family members to move and reside freely within the territory
of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and
repealing Directives
72/194/EEC,
73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and
93/96/EEC (OJ L 158, p. 77).

68/360/EEC,

64/221/EEC,

(3) Moniteur belge of 20 November 2002, p. 51778.

In his application,
the applicant claims that, since he was
appointed an official in the same Grade immediately following
his period of service as a member of the temporary staff, the
Commission should have appointed him, under the third para-
graph of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations, in grade A*14,
step 8. By refusing him the benefit of that provision,
the
Commission made a manifest error of law.

(1) OJ C 246 A, 5.10.2004, p. 1.

Action brought on 16 August 2006 — Dethomas v
Commission

Action brought on 11 August 2006 — F v Commission

(Case F-93/06)

(2006/C 237/38)

(Case F-94/06)

(2006/C 237/39)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Dethomas (Rabat, Morocco) (represented by:
S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Applicant: F (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Van Rossum,
S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

Form of order sought

— Annul

the Commission decision of 11 January 2006
appointing the applicant a probationary official of the Euro-
pean Communities, as Head of the Commission delegation
to Morocco in the Directorate-General for External Rela-
tions, in so far as it classifies him in Grade A*14, step 2;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the decision of the Director of DG ADMIN/C ‘Social
welfare policy, Luxembourg staff, health, safety’ of 23
February 2006 to retire the applicant and to award him an
invalidity allowance fixed in accordance with the provisions
of the second paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regula-
tions, with retrospective effect from 1 February 2002;

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant a sum assessed on

equitable principles at EUR 15 000;

While he was a member of the temporary staff in Grade A*14,
step 8, the applicant applied for the post advertised in vacancy

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.