Case F-22/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 September 2006 — Vienne and Others v Parliament (Refusal of assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Transfer of pension rights acquired in Belgium — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2006-10-28
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action by staff, indemnification, regulations for civil servants, rights of civil servants, transfer of pension rights

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applying for her parental leave to be withdrawn in reliance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