Case F-86/06: Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Vereecken v Commission
Date: 2006-09-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, appointment of staff, professional career, promotion, staff assessment

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;