Case F-94/06: Action brought on 11 August 2006 — F v Commission
Date: 2006-09-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, disability insurance, pension scheme, regulations for civil servants

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.

30.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/23

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant puts forward very
similar pleas to those in Case F-44/06 (1), which he also
brought.

(1) OJ C 154, 1.7.2006, p. 25.

Action brought on 11 August 2006 — Taruffi v
Commission

(Case F-95/06)

(2006/C 237/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

(repre-
Applicant: Adrien Taruffi
sented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal,
lawyers)

(Schouweiler, Luxembourg)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Declare illegal Article 4(1) of the General

Implementing
Provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, adopted
by the Commission decision of 23 December 2004 (GIP);

— Annul

the Commission decisions fixing the applicant's
merit and priority points in respect of the 2004 and 2005
promotion exercises and the decisions not to include his
name on the merit list after Promotion Committees and on
the list of officials promoted to Grade B*10 in the 2004
promotion exercise;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

covered by the ‘research’ budget whereas, for that exercise, he
was covered by the ‘operations’ budget.

As regards the 2005 exercise, the applicant regards as illegal
the Commission's interpretation of Article 4(1) of the GIP,
under which, even though the applicant had been assigned to
two separate Directorates-General and an interim report had
been drawn up for the first part of 2004 including the award
of merit points, only the Directorate-General responsible for
establishing his final report would have the power to award
priority points.

In general, the applicant submits that the contested decisions
were adopted in breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations
and that length of service, rather than merit, was taken into
account as the decisive criterion.

Action brought on 10 August 2006 — G v Commission of
the European Communities

(Case F-96/06)

(2006/C 237/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: G (Port-Vendres, France) (represented by: B. Camber
and L. Cambier, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— declare that the defendant is liable for the wrongful acts

that it has committed to the applicant's detriment;

— order

the defendant

to pay provisional damages of
EUR 1 581 801 to the applicant and his family, which
corresponds to half of the damage caused by all of the
wrongful acts committed by the Commission,
its agents,
employees and/or other dependent bodies, the other half
having to be assessed with the assistance of an expert;

In support of his application, the applicant argues that there
was no genuine examination of his merits in the appraisal
carried out by the Promotion Committee, following the admin-
istration's positive response to his first complaint.

As regards the 2004 exercise, the applicant pleads, inter alia,
that there was a manifest error of assessment in that his merits
in the 2004 exercise were compared to those of the officials

— order the defendant to pay 8 % interest on all of the above-
mentioned sums from 23 November 1999 onwards, when
the first report of the internal enquiry of the European
Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) was published, in which the first
signs of bias against the applicant appeared, or, in the alter-
native, from 29 June 2005 onwards, when the applicant
lodged a request for compensation under Article 90(1) of
the Staff Regulations;