Case F-85/06: Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Bellantone v Court of Auditors
Date: 2006-09-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Court of Auditors, action by staff, appointment of staff, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)

C 237/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.9.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the defendant, after challenging
before the Court of First Instance of the European Commu-
nities, first, the decision to reassign him to the post of Chief
Adviser in the DG in which he was employed (1) and, second,
the decision to reject his application for a post of Director in
the same DG (2), currently disputes the defendant's decisions,
taken in the context of the reorganisation of DG Eurostat, to
reject his application for the post of Director announced in
vacancy notice COM/2006/164, and to appoint another candi-
date to that post.

In support of his application, the applicant relies on infringe-
ment of: (i) the duty to give reasons, (ii) Article 27 of the Staff
Regulations and (iii) of the Rules of Conduct for Appointments
to Posts in Grades A1 and A2, approved by the defendant on
18 September 1999, as confirmed and further defined by the
Compilation Document on Senior Officials Policy, approved by
the defendant on 26 October 2004.

(1) Case T-118/04 (OJ C 118, 30.04.2004, p. 47).
(2) Case T-134/04 (OJ C 146, 29.05.2004, p. 6).

In support of his application, the applicant relies on the seven
following pleas in law:

— first, infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

— second,

infringement of the general

implementing provi-

sions in respect of that article;

— third, infringement of the principle of non-discrimination;

— fourth, infringement of the Administrative Guide ‘Appraisal

and Promotion of Officials’, and of successive Guides;

— fifth, infringement of the principles of prohibition of arbi-
trary procedures and of abuse of powers, and also infringe-
ment of the duty to give reasons;

— sixth, infringement of the principle of protection of legiti-
mate expectations, and of the rule ‘Patere legem quam ipse
fecisti’ (obey the rules which you yourself have made);

— seventh, infringement of the duty to have regard for the

welfare of officials.

Action brought on 30 July 2006 — Schell v Commission

(Case F-83/06)

(2006/C 237/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Arno Schell (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F.
Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the lists of officials promoted in the 2004 and 2005
promotion years, in so far as these lists do not contain the
applicant's name, and also,
the preparatory
actions of those decisions;

incidentally,

— in the alternative, annul the allocation of promotion points

in those years in so far as the applicant is concerned;

Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Bellantone v Court of
Auditors

(Case F-85/06)

(2006/C 237/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gerardo Bellantone
(represented by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

(Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the Euro-
pean Court of Auditors of 30 March 2006 rejecting the
applicant's complaint seeking payment of the balance of the
allowance in lieu of additional notice, of the severance
grant and of the daily subsistence allowance;

— Order the defendant to pay: (i) EUR 20 751,45 in respect of
additional notice, (ii) EUR 39 247,74 corresponding to the
severance grant to which the applicant could have been
entitled, (iii) EUR 8 467,02 in respect of daily subsistence
allowance;

— Order the defendant to pay interest for late payment until

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

payment is made;

30.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/19

— Order the rectification of the remarks made in the contested
decision concerning the absence of any remark by the
applicant regarding the threat of possible dismissal by the
defendant;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former member of the temporary staff of the
European Court of Auditors in Grade A*8, was appointed as a
in Grade A*5, without his agreement
probationary official
being sought beforehand.

In his application, the applicant maintains that the defendant's
conduct amounts to breaches of contractual and non-contrac-
tual duties. He alleges infringement of the Code of good admin-
istrative conduct for the staff of the European Court of Audi-
tors, infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, as well
as infringement of the general principles of the law of the
legitimate
public service relating to sound administration,
expectations and the retention of acquired rights.

reclassification of the applicant at grade A*9 with retrospec-
tive effect from 1 March 2005.

In the alternative:

— require the defendant to recognise that the applicant is
eligible for promotion to grade A*9 at the time of his next
promotion;

— order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage
suffered by the applicant as a result of not being promoted
to grade A*9 as from 1 March 2005;

— order the defendant to pay compensation for non-material
damage suffered by the applicant because no staff reports
for 1997-1999 were drawn up and the 1999-2001 staff
report and the career progress reports for 2003 and 2004
were drawn up late.

In any event:

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant submits three pleas, very
similar to the first, third and fourth pleas relied on in applica-
tion F-17/06 (1), brought by the same applicant.

Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Vereecken v Commis-
sion

(1) OJ C 96 of 22.04.2006, p. 39.

(Case F-86/06)

(2006/C 237/33)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 3 August 2006 — Manté v Council

Parties

Applicant: Marc Vereecken (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
S. Rodrigues, A. Jaume and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-87/06)

(2006/C 237/34)

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

Parties

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Principally:

— annul the decision of the Appointing Authority refusing the
applicant's objection, taken together with the refusal of the
Appointing Authority to put the applicant on the list of
officials promoted to grade A*9 in the 2005 promotion
exercise, that refusal resulting implicitly from Administra-
tive Notice No 85/2005 of 23 November 2005, as well as
with the applicant's career progress reports for the years
2003 and 2005;

— indicate to the Appointing Authority the effects of the
the

annulment of the contested decisions,

in particular,

Applicant: Thierry Manté (Woluwe Saint Pierre, Belgium) (repre-
sented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Council's Appointing Authority of
22 August 2005 refusing to grant the applicant the installa-
tion allowance and ordering its recovery;