Case F-96/06: Action brought on 10 August 2006 — G v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-09-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, action by staff, administrative sanction, confidentiality, rights of civil servants, working conditions

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;

C 237/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.9.2006

— appoint an expert;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

and contests the Commission Invalidity Committee's decision
indefinitely to stay the proceedings under Article 78(5) of the
Staff Regulations, until a decision has been taken on the basis
of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant puts forward eight
pleas in law.

First, he criticises the Commission for placing him at the heart
of the ‘Berthelot’ affair and for considering him as the leading
instigator of that affair, whereas in fact all of these allegations
were false, and there was not the slightest evidence to support
any such allegations against the applicant. In doing so, the
Commission failed to fulfil its duty to have regard for the inter-
ests of officials and its duty of good administration, and
frustrated the applicant's legitimate expectations.

Second,
the applicant criticises the Commission for having
gravely compromised his right to a fair hearing through all the
failures and deficiencies in the administrative enquiries stem-
ming from the ‘Berthelot’ affair, which were not carried out
impartially.

Third, the applicant claims breach of the Commission's duty of
confidentiality in allowing journalists, during the course of the
year 2000, to enter OLAF's premises and thereby gain knowl-
edge of certain confidential documents concerning the appli-
cant, details of which were then broadcast
in a television
programme.

Eighth, the applicant finds fault with the fact that disciplinary
proceedings against him were initiated and continued, while
the evidence that formed the basis of those proceedings had
been found to be baseless by the Belgian courts, in criminal
proceedings brought against the applicant.

The applicant concludes that
the Commission's abovemen-
tioned wrongful acts are the cause of the nervous depression
which forced him prematurely to end his career as an official.
This state of affairs caused material damage and pain and
suffering to him and his family.

Action brought on 15 August 2006 — Adelaida Lopez
Teruel v Office of Harmonisation for the Internal Market

(Case F-97/06)

(2006/C 237/42)

Language of the case: French

Fourth, the Commission criticises the Commission's decision to
lift his immunity from jurisdiction.

Parties

Fifth, the applicant criticises the Commission for transferring
him to the post of Chief Adviser in the Directorate-General
Research and Technological Development, not in the interests
of the Commission's service nor by applying the institution's
mobility policy, but as a veiled disciplinary sanction.

Sixth, regarding the procedure for recognition of the occupa-
tional cause of the applicant's illness (Article 73 of the Staff
Regulations), the applicant contests the Commission's decisions
to exclude, from the outset, the possibility that his illness might
be work-related, and to transfer his file to the Investigation and
Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC), so that the
latter could carry out administrative enquiries seeking to deter-
mine the cause of his illness.

Applicant: Adelaida Lopez Teruel (El Casar, Spain) (represented
by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

Defendant: Office of Harmonisation for the Internal Market

Form of order sought

— annul

the appointing authority's decision of 6 October
2005 to refuse the applicant's request to convene an Inva-
lidity Committee, in accordance with Article 78 of the Staff
Regulations;

— in so far as it is necessary, annul the appointing authority's
decision of 5 May 2006 rejecting the complaint lodged by
the applicant on 6 January 2006;

Seventh, the applicant relies on the independence of the proce-
dures governed by Articles 73 and 78 of the Staff Regulations

— order the defendant to pay the costs.