Case F-87/06: Action brought on 3 August 2006 — Manté v Council
Date: 2006-09-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European official, action by staff, allowances and expenses, regulations for civil servants

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;

C 237/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.9.2006

— order the defendant to pay the applicant, as compensation
for material damage suffered, an amount equivalent to the
sums relating to the installation allowance which will have
been recovered at the date of the judgment of the Tribunal,
increased by the interest rate in force at that date;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant the token sum of

1 euro, as compensation for pain and suffering;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant arrived in Brussels in 2004 as a national expert
on secondment at the Council, and subsequently became an
official at
the same institution. The Council, after having
granted him the installation allowance, decided that he was not
entitled to it and ordered its recovery.

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

— first, breach of his right to the installation allowance arising
from the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Annexe VII to
the Staff Regulations;

— secondly, breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
reasons arising from Articles 20(2) and 90(1) of the Staff
Regulations;

— thirdly, breach of the conditions referred to in the first para-
graph of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations in so far as
they relate to recovery of the installation allowance by the
administration.

Action brought on 11 August 2006 — Michel Nolin v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-89/06)

(2006/C 237/35)

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 decision and the formal intention of the Director-
General of the Legal Service, based respectively on Article
13(3) and Article 5(7) of the General Provisions for Imple-
menting Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by
Commission Decision of 23 December 2004 not to allocate
any Directorate-General priority points to the applicant for
the ‘promotion exercise’
‘promotion year’)
2005, as confirmed and made final by the decision of the

(hereinafter

Director-General of Personnel and Administration,
taken
pursuant to Article 10(2) of the General Provisions for
Implementing Article 45 of
the Staff Regulations, and
rejecting the internal appeal filed on 26 September 2005;

taken pursuant

— annul the decision of the Director-General of Personnel and
Administration,
the
General Provisions for Implementing Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations not to allocate to the applicant any special
priority points in recognition of work undertaken in the
interest of the institution, for the promotion year 2005;

to Article 10(2) of

— annul the list of officials to whom priority points in recog-
nition of work undertaken in the interest of the institution
were awarded, the merit list of officials of grade A*12 in
the 2005 promotion year, and the list of officials promoted
to grade A*13 in that year;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant first points out that
in applying the General Provisions for Implementing Article 45
of the Staff Regulations in the 2005 promotion exercise the
Commission infringed the principles of
legal certainty and
protection of legitimate expectations, to the extent that those
provisions were adopted at the end of December 2004.

Furthermore, the applicant submits that the decision not to
allocate to him any Directorate-General priority points, when
he had obtained the highest mark of any official in his grade
for the period from July 2001 to
and in his department
December 2003, infringes Article 45 of the Staff Regulations,
and the General Provisions for Implementing that Article,
which require merit
to be the determining factor for the
awarding of such points, and constitutes a manifest error of
assessment. Moreover, the applicant states that, to the extent
that the Directorate-General priority points were not allocated
on the basis of merit, the Commission has misused its powers.

Next, the applicant claims that the decision not to allocate to
him any priority points in recognition of work undertaken in
the interest of the institution is illegal, in light of the fact that
his application for membership of the selection board was
successful. There was therefore an infringement of Article 5 of
the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equal treatment.

Finally, according to the applicant, the lists cited in the third
indent (above) must also be annulled,
first, because of the
defects of the contested decisions, and, second, because of the
illegality of certain articles of the General Provisions for Imple-
menting Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant
states that:

— by providing for the awarding of priority points in recogni-
tion of work undertaken in the interest of the institution
for certain supplementary tasks which are already taken
into account during the marking and awarding of Directo-
rate-General priority points, Article 9 of the General Provi-
sions for Implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations
infringes Article 45 of those Regulations as well as the prin-
ciple that officials should have reasonable career prospects,
and the principle of equal treatment;