Case F-108/06: Action brought on 18 September 2006 — Diomede Basili v Commission
Date: 2006-10-28
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, professional career, staff assessment

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/37

Pleas in law and main arguments

In particular,

infringement of

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward three pleas,
the first of which alleges infringement of Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations,
the General provisions imple-
menting that article (GIP), infringement of Annex XIII to the
Staff Regulations, infringement of the duty to give reasons and
manifest errors of assessment.
the applicant
alleges that, despite his excellent merit appraisals and the fact
that he was twice included in the ‘ex A4 reserve’ (of candidates
considered deserving of promotion in the previous year's
procedure but not promoted), he was not awarded the three
transitional points provided for in Article 12(2)(c) of the GIP,
or the four additional special priority points or even the one
supplementary priority point awarded by his Directorate
General and requested in the action brought before the Joint
Promotion Committee for grade A officials. The applicant also
puts forward the fact that the promotion rate of 5 % for A*12
officials was not reached.

treatment of

The second plea is that the principles of equal opportunity, of
equal
staff and of non-discrimination were
infringed. According to the applicant, both the content of the
rules and their implementation in the light of the transitional
decisions concerning officials in the grade A*12 ‘reserve’ are
unfair and discriminatory in relation to the transitional
measures adopted specifically for ‘reserve officials’ from other
grades. In addition, he submits that there has been discrimina-
tion within grade A*12, because of the current existence within
that grade of former A*11 officials promoted previously and
who received in their rucksack four additional special ‘reserve’
points, in breach of the principles cited above.

The third plea alleges infringement of the principle of the
protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of sound
administration and the principle of the duty to have regard for
the interests of officials. According to the applicant, despite the
assurances given by the authorities, the applicant's status as an
official twice included in the reserve and the earlier ‘second
round’ system were not taken into account. In addition, in so
far as the new promotion system was applied for the first time
in 2005 with regard to officials of the applicant's grade, the
applicant maintains that he was entitled to expect to be treated
in the same way, in particular as regards the ‘reserve’, as offi-
cials of other grades, who benefited from transitional measures
intended to alleviate the disadvantages caused by the transition
from the old promotion system to the new.

Action brought on 18 September 2006 — Diomede Basili
v Commission

(Case F-108/06)

(2006/C 261/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Tamara Diomede Basili
sented by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

(Brussels, Belgium)

(repre-

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the career development report (CDR) notified to the

applicant on 10 November 2005;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official of grade AD 11, took part
in the DG ECFIN Joint Evaluation Committee and in the Selec-
tion Board for competition COM/PA/04 during 2004. In her
action, she challenges her CDR, in so far as it did not take into
account the opinion of the ‘ad hoc working party and the staff
representatives' suggestions for promotion’ laid down in Article
6(3)(c) of the general provisions implementing Article 43 of
the Staff Regulations (GIP). In addition to the infringement of
that provision of the GIP, the applicant alleges the infringement
of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 1 of Annex
II to the Staff Regulations.