Case F-80/06: Action brought on 21 July 2006 — Duyster v Commission
Date: 2006-10-28
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, parental leave, regulations for civil servants

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/33

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 September 2006
— Vienne and Others v Parliament

Form of order sought by the applicant

(Case F-22/06) (1)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Refusal of assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regula-
tions — Transfer of pension rights acquired in Belgium —
Inadmissibility)

— declare the action admissible or, in the alternative, in part

admissible;

(2006/C 261/68)

Language of the case: French

— annul the Appointing Authority's decisions of 22 December
2005 and 11 May 2006 or, in the alternative, annul them
in part;

Parties

Applicants: Philippe Vienne (Bascharage, Luxembourg) and
Others (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

— hold that no legal

from
rule precludes
applying for her parental leave to be withdrawn in reliance
on Article 2 of the General Provisions for Implementing
Article 42a of the Staff Regulations relating to Parental
Leave (‘GPI’);

the applicant

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: F. De Wachter,
M. Mustapha-Pacha and K. Zejdova, Agents)

— find that the defendant has advanced no valid argument or
legal reason precluding the conclusion that the applicant is
in active employment;

Re:

First, annulment of the European Parliament's decision rejecting
the requests for assistance brought by the applicants in connec-
tion with the transfer of
their pension rights acquired in
Belgium and, secondly, an application for damages.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. Each party is to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

Action brought on 21 July 2006 — Duyster v Commission

(Case F-80/06)

(2006/C 261/69)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Tineke Duyster (Oetrange, Luxembourg) (represented
by: W.H.A.M. van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— find that

the defendant has advanced no argument

for
depriving the applicant of the benefits connected with the
administrative position of active employment;

— in the alternative, hold that no legal rule precludes the
defendant from a balancing of interests, in which it applies
Article 2(4) of the GPI and adopts a decision on that basis
in respect of the withdrawal of parental leave;

— in the further alternative, uphold in part one or more of the

above claims;

— order the defendant to pay the costs, including those of the
legal assistance relating to the decision adopted following
the applicant's request of 6 December 2005.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In Cases F-51/05 (1) and F-18/06 (2), the applicant has already
challenged the Commission's giving her parental leave for the
period from 1 November 2004 to 30 April 2005 and, then, by
letter of 17 November 2005, fixing 8 November 2004 as the
date when the parental leave started.

the parental

On 6 December 2005, the applicant made a request based on,
among others things, Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations and
on the GPI in respect of parental leave. She sought the annul-
leave referred to in the Appointing
ment of
Authority's letter. On 22 December 2005,
the Appointing
Authority's declared that request inadmissible. The applicant
then lodged, on 14 February 2006, a complaint under Article
the decision of 22
90(2) of
December 2005. On 16 May 2006, the Appointing Authority
also declared that complaint inadmissible in a decision of only
a few lines.

the Staff Regulations against

C 261/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.10.2006

In support of her action against the inadmissibility decisions,
the applicant pleads, in particular: (i) mistakes of fact on which
the decisions are based; (ii) infringement of the content and
purpose of Article 90(1) and (2) of the Staff Regulations; (iii)
contradictions; (iv) the decision's lack of clarity; (v) infringe-
ment of the content and purpose of Article 42a of the Staff
Regulations; (vi) infringement of the content and purpose of
Article 2 of the GPI; (vii) failure to follow the case-law; (viii)
infringement of the content and purpose of Article 25 of the
Staff Regulations; (ix) breach of the principles of proportion-
ality, protection of legitimate expectations, equal treatment and
legal certainty, as well as breach of the principle of balancing
the relevant interests, non-compliance with the employer's duty
to provide information and breach of the principle of sound
the Appointing
administration;
Authority's statement
the applicant's
request already forms part of Case F-51/05.

foundation for
the contents of

lack of
that

(x)

The applicant also puts forward the arguments by which she
submits that it is possible to rule favourably on the substance
of her request. She pleads, among other matters, new circum-
stances justifying the making of a further request (even with
retrospective effect), the content and purpose of Article 42a of
the Staff Regulations, the content of the GPI,
in particular,
Article 2(4) thereof, Articles 35, 36, 59 and 62 of the Staff
Regulations and breach of
the legal principles cited above
under (x).

(1) OJ C 217, 3.9.2005 (Case initially registered in the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities under No T-249/05 and
transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order
of 15.12.2005).
(2) OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.

Action brought on 21 July 2006 — Duyster v Commission

(Case F-81/06)

(2006/C 261/70)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Tineke Duyster (Oetrange, Luxembourg) (represented
by: W.H.A.M. van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— declare the appeal inadmissible in its entirety;

— annul

the decisions of

the Appointing Authority of 8

November 2005 and of 11 May 2006;

— grant the applicant damages for the loss suffered;

— in the alternative, grant wholly or in part the forms of
order sought above or adopt a decision granting the appli-
cant's requests of 5 and 13 July 2005;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

that

In Cases F-51/06 (1) and F-18/06 (2), the applicant has already
challenged the fact
the Commission first granted her
parental leave in respect of the period from 1 November 2004
to 30 April 2005 and then, by letter of 17 November 2005,
fixed the starting date of her parental
leave at 8 November
2004.

In this case, the applicant challenges the decisions by which the
Commission rejected as inadmissible her requests submitted in
order to obtain damages under Article 288 EC and Article
90(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials, concerning approxi-
mately 50 objections
relating to allegedly negligent acts
committed by the Commission's departments.

In support of her action against the decisions of inadmissibility,
the applicant alleges, inter alia: (i) that the decisions were based
on incorrect facts (ii) infringement of the content and rationale
of Article 90(1) and (2) of the Staff Regulations; (iii) that the
decisions are contradictory; (iv) that the decisions lack clarity;
(v) that the Appointing Authority is incorrectly interpreting
and/or applying the case-law relating to Article 288 EC and
Article 90 of the Staff Regulations; (vi) that the Appointing
Authority uses misconceived arguments; (vii) infringement of
the principles of proportionality, the protection of legitimate
expectations, equal treatment and legal certainty, and infringe-
ment of the principle that different interests must be weighed
against each other, failure to observe the employer's duty to
the principle of
provide information, and infringement of
sound administration and the right to a legal remedy.

(1) OJ C 217, 3.9.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of
First
the European Communities under number T-
249/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European
Union by Order of 15.12.2005).

Instance of

(2) OJ C 154, 1.7.2006