Case F-104/06: Action brought on 4 September 2006 — Arpaillange and Others v Commission
Date: 2006-10-28
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, consultancy, equal treatment, servant (EU), staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/35

Action brought on 4 September 2006 — Haelterman and
Others v Commission

(Case F-102/06)

(2006/C 261/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Geert Haelterman (Ninove, Belgium) and Others
(represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

promoted to Grade A*10 in the 2005 promotion proce-
dure, which decisions are to be implied from Administrative
Notice No 85-2005 of 23 November 2005;

— Directions to the AIPN as to the effects of the annulment of
the contested decisions and, in particular, reclassification of
the applicants in Grade A*10, with retrospective effect from
1 March 2005,

— In the alternative, as regards one of the applicants, first, a
direction to the defendant
to recognise him as being
eligible, on his next promotion, for promotion to Grade
A*10 and, second, to order the defendant to compensate
the same applicant for the loss he suffered as a result of not
being promoted to Grade A*10 from 1 March 2005;

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— An order that the defendant pay the costs.

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Annulment of the individual decisions rejecting the appli-
cants' applications for the adoption by the Appointing
Authority (AIPN) of transitional measures to guarantee, in
connection with the 2005 and subsequent promotion
procedures, equal treatment and their vested rights;

— An order that the Commission of the European Commu-

nities pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on pleas in law
identical to those pleaded in Case F-47/06. (1)

(1) OJEU C 154, 1.07.2006, p. 25.

Action brought on 4 September 2006 — Blank and Others
v Commission

(Case F-103/06)

(2006/C 261/72)

Language of the case: French

In support of their action, the applicants rely on pleas in law
very similar to those pleaded in Case F-45/06. (1)

(1) OJEU C 143, 17.06.2006, p. 39.

Action brought on 4 September 2006 — Arpaillange and
Others v Commission

(Case F-104/06)

(2006/C 261/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Joséphine Arpaillange (Santiago do Chile, Chile) and
Others (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Applicants: Klaus Blank (St. Stevens-Woluwe, Belgium) and
Others (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz,
lawyers )

Form of order sought by the applicants

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annulment of

(AIPN)

to enter

the refusal of

the Appointing Authority
the applicants on the list of officials

— annul the decisions of the authority authorised to conclude
contracts stipulating the applicants' conditions of employ-
ment, as set out in their contracts as contract staff, on the
ground that the number of years of professional experience
recognised in their cases by the authority authorised to
conclude contracts is less than the number of years' profes-
sional experience actually acquired by the applicants;

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.