Case F-74/06: Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Longinidis v Cedefop
Date: 2006-09-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Cedefop, action by staff, discretionary power, unfair dismissal, work contract

30.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/15

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Longinidis v Cedefop

(Case F-74/06)

(2006/C 237/26)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Pavlos Longinidis (Thessalonius, Greece) (represented
by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

Defendant: Centre européen pour le développement de la forma-
tion professionnelle (‘European Centre for the Development of
Vocational Training’) (‘Cedefop’)

Forms of order sought

— annul

the decision of Cedefop′s Directorate of 30
November 2005 terminating the applicant's indefinite term
contract;

— annul the decision of Cedefop′s Directorate of 10 March
2006 refusing the applicant′s request to suspend enforce-
ment of that decision;

— annul the decision of Cedefop′s Directorate of 9 December
2005 downgrading the applicant from his post as Head of
Legal and Contract Management Services to the rank of
advisor to Cedefop;

— annul the decision of 24 May 2006 by which the Cedefop′s
Appeals Committee rejected the applicant′s complaint
seeking the annulment of the three abovementioned deci-
sions; this decision contained the grounds on which the
appointing authority terminated the applicant′s contract;

— annul the decision of 11 November 2005 by which Cede-
fop′s Directorate amended the composition of the Appeals
Committee;

— annul the decision of 14 November 2005 by which Cede-
fop′s Appeals Committee amended its rules of procedure;

— annul the decision of Cedefop′s Appeals Committee′s of 10
March 2006 refusing the applicant′s complaint seeking
annulment of
abovementioned decisions of 11
the
November 2005 and of 14 November;

— annul the decision of Cedefop's Appeals Committee of 9
March 2006, relating to the complaint lodged by one of
Cedefop's agent, so far as this decision affects the appli-
cant′s reputation and his professional integrity;

— order Cedefop to compensate the applicant for the financial
to the basic rate of salary, additional
damage — equal
salary and pension rights — that the abovementioned deci-
sion of 30 November 2005 has caused him;

— order Cedefop to pay the applicant 50 000 euros as
compensation for pain and suffering caused by the above-
mentioned decision of 30 November 2005 by the above-
mentioned decision of 9 March 2006;

— order Cedefop to pay the applicant one euro symbolically
as compensation for pain and suffering caused by the
abovementioned decision of 11 November 2005;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the decision of 30 November 2005, the Director of Cedefop
terminated the employment contract for an indefinite term
linking the applicant to Cedefop. According to the applicant
this decision was taken beyond the limits of the discretionary
power of the appointing authority and it is marred by misuse
of power, breach of the right to be heard and of the right to a
fair hearing, and also contradictions in the statement of
reasons.

According to the applicant, it is apparent from the explanations
given by the appointing authority in the course of examining
the administrative complaint that the reason for the dismissal
in
must be found in the proposal, made by the applicant,
August 2005, not
to renew the fixed-term employment
contract of an employee, of whom the applicant was the hier-
archical superior. The appointing authority, following the reap-
pointment of the governing board of Cedefop, reinstated that
employee
appointing
authority took this decision on the basis of a manifestly incor-
rect assessment of
the circumstances and the decision to
dismiss the applicant was clearly against the interests of the
service.

and dismissed the

applicant. The

— annul the decision of Cedefop′s Directorate of 28 April
the deputy
2006 rejecting the applicant's request
director of Cedefop should be excluded from leading the
administrative investigation concerning him and the appli-
cant;

that

Next, the applicant states that the other contested decisions are
marred by breach of Cedefop's internal procedures, such as the
provisions concerning the Appeals Committee, the provisions
concerning administrative inquiries and disciplinary proce-
dures.

C 237/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.9.2006

The applicant also requests compensation for the illegal termi-
nation of his contract. Finally, he requests compensation from
Cedefop, relying on the provisions relating to non-contractual
responsibility of the community bodies, because of the alleged
attack made on his character and his professional reputation by
the decision to dismiss him and by the content of the decision
taken by the Appeals committee concerning the complaint
lodged by the abovementioned employee.

— thirdly, breach of the principle of protection of legitimate

expectations.

Action brought on 18 July 2006 — Tsirimokos v European
Parliament

(Case F-76/06)

(2006/C 237/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant:
(represented by: J. Choucroun, lawyer)

Ioannis Tsirimokos

(Senningerberg, Luxembourg)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— annul the European Parliament′s decision of 25 October

2005 confirmed 19 April 2006;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a European Parliament official since 1 May
1981, lodged, 7 September 2005 a request to work part time
in preparation for retirement, as provided for by Article 55a of
the Staff Regulations and Article 4 of Annex IVa of the Staff
Regulations. In the calculation of the percentage of the basic
salary to which the applicant was entitled, the administration
did not take into account the years of pensionable service that
the applicant had acquired before being recruited by the Euro-
pean Parliament.

Action brought on 18 July 2006 — Colovea v European
Parliament

(Case F-77/06)

(2006/C 237/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Fotini Colovea (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)
sented by: J. Choucroun, lawyer)

(repre-

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— annul the European Parliament′s decision of 20 September

2005, confirmed 19 April 2006;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was recruited by the European Parliament as a
member of the temporary staff at Grade B5 on 1 May 1981.
On 4 August 2005 she introduced a request of to work part
time in preparation for retirement, as provided for by Article
55a of the Staff Regulations and Article 4 of Annex IVa of the
Staff Regulations. In the calculation of the percentage of the
basic salary to which the applicant was entitled, the administra-
tion did not take into account the years of pensionable service
that the applicant had acquired before being recruited by the
European Parliament.

In support of his action, the applicant invokes three pleas in
law:

— firstly, breach of Article 2 of Annex VIII of the Staff Regula-

tions;

In support of his action, the applicant invokes three pleas in
law:

— secondly, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare

of officials;

— firstly, breach of Article 2 of Annex VIII of the Staff Regula-

— thirdly, breach of the principle of protection of legitimate

tions;

expectations.

— secondly, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare

of officials;