Case F-107/06: Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Berrisford v Commission
Date: 2006-10-28
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, equal treatment, promotion, regulations for civil servants

C 261/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.10.2006

— give the authority authorised to conclude contracts direc-
tions as to the effects of the annulment of the contested
decisions, and particularly the regrading of the applicants in
their actual
the grade and step which take account of
professional experience and of their seniority as individual
experts;

tions of Employment are treated differently,
in terms of
possible grading on recruitment, and of developing their
professional experience and career, whereas their situation is
comparable; third, that compensation for loss of income, such
as that which is provided for former local staff has not been
provided for former individual experts.

— convert,

if appropriate,
contracts for an unlimited period;

the applicants' contracts

into

— order the defendant to pay the applicants the difference
between the salary corresponding to the grade and step in
which they were placed and the salary corresponding to the
grade and step in which they should have been placed, with
interest for delay in payment;

— in the alternative, order the defendant, first, to compensate
the applicants for the loss they suffered, in terms of loss of
income, because of their passage from the status of indivi-
dual expert to that of contract staff, by the payment of a
monthly compensatory allowance and, second, to pay to
the applicants the difference between the salary which they
have received since taking up their duties as contract staff
and the salary plus the aforementioned allowance, with
interest for delay in payment;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Finally, the applicants allege breach of the principle of respect
for vested rights, because of, first, a consequent reduction in
their salary for identical duties and, second, the failure to take
into account the years for which they had worked with the
status of individual experts for the purposes of their grading in
step and for the purposes of the conversion of their contracts
as contract staff for a limited period into contracts for a fixed
term.

Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Berrisford v
Commission

(Case F-107/06)

(2006/C 261/74)

Language of the case: French

Pleas in law and main arguments

in
The applicants, after having worked for several years
Commission delegations outside the Community with the
status of individual experts, were recruited with the status of
contract staff, following the disappearance of the other status.

Parties

At the time of the applicants' grading, the Commission recog-
nised them as having less professional experience than that
which they submit they had actually gained, and, in any event,
less than that which they were recognised as having acquired at
the time of their recruitment as individual experts.

In support of their action, the applicants plead breach of the
Conditions of employment of other servants of the European
Communities (‘Conditions of Employment’) on the ground that
Article 2 of the General Provisions for Implementing the proce-
dures governing the engagement and the employment of
contract staff of 7 April 2004 (‘GPI’) imposes a requirement for
the engagement of contract staff — one year of appropriate
professional experience — which is not required by Article 82
of the Conditions of Employment.

Furthermore, the applicants submit that, at the time of the
the Commission
evaluation of their professional experience,
infringed the principles of legal certainty and the protection of
legitimate expectations, was in breach of the duty to have
regard for the interests of officials and made a manifest error of
assessment.

Next, the applicants plead infringement of the principles of
equal treatment and of non-discrimination on the grounds;
first, that the GPI provide that staff having nearly 20 years of
experience are graded in the same grade as staff having no
more than seven years' experience; second, that contract staff
covered by Article 3a of the Conditions of Employment, such
as the applicants, and those covered by Article 3b of the Condi-

Applicant: Michael Berrisford (Brussels, Belgium)
by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

(represented

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decision not to include the applicant's name in
the list of officials promoted from A*12 to A*13 in a ‘2005
promotion procedure’, and consequently not to promote
the applicant, as published in Administrative Notice No 85-
2005 of 23 November 2005, in so far as that decision was
adopted although the applicant was wrongly awarded an
insufficient number of priority points in that promotion
procedure;

— annul the decision of 6 June 2006 rejecting the complaint
brought by the applicant on 21 February 2006 under No
R/123/06,
in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff
Regulations;

— order the defendant to pay, by way of compensation for the
material and non-material damage and harm to the appli-
cant's career, the sum of EUR 25 000, with interest at the
rate of 7 % per annum from 21 February 2006, the date of
the complaint;

— in any event, order the defendant to pay all the costs, in
accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

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.