Case F-88/06: Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Pantalis v Commission
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, divorced person, family benefit

C 281/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2006

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Action brought on 21 July 2006 — Duyster v Commission

(Case F-82/06)

(2006/C 281/79)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

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

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should

— declare the action admissible or, in the alternative, admis-

sible in part;

— annul that part of the Appointing Authority's decision of
11 May 2006 which concerns complaint R/91/06 or, in the
alternative, annul the decision in part;

— order the defendant to pay the costs;

— in addition to the foregoing, the applicant seeks the same
in Case F-

forms of order as she has already sought
18/06 (1).

Pleas in law and main arguments

In Cases F-51/05 (2) and F-18/06, the applicant has already
challenged the fact
the Commission first granted her
parental leave from 1 November 2004 to 30 April 2005 and,
then, by letter of 17 November 2005, set the date of the start
of her parental leave at 8 November 2004.

that

Having doubts as to the legal characterisation of that final
letter, the applicant challenged it on 13 February 2006, simul-
taneously by means of a complaint and a legal action (F-
18/06). The Commission, first, raised a plea of inadmissibility
in that action and, second, declared the complaint to be inad-
missible by decision of 11 May 2006.

In this case, the applicant submits that the effect of the above
is that there is no legal remedy against the decision contained
in the letter of 17 November 2005 and that no compensation
can be awarded as regards the statements of the Appointing
Authority contained in it. That infringes,
inter alia, the Staff
Regulations and the legal principles common to the Member
States and the Communities.

In support of her action against the decision of inadmissibility,
the applicant pleads, inter alia: (i) that the decision was based
on incorrect evidence; (ii) the infringement of the content and
the purpose of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations; (iii) the exis-
tence of contradictions; (iv) that the decision lacked clarity and
was negligent; (v) the infringement of the content and purpose
of Articles 24 and 25 of the Staff Regulations; (vi) the situation
of uncertainty created by the Commission regarding the legal
characterisation of the letter of 17 November 2005; (viii) the
infringement of the principles of proportionality, the protection
of legitimate expectations, equal treatment and legal certainty
and the infringement of the principle that interests must be
failure to comply with the
weighed against one another,
employer's duty to provide information,
infringement of the
right to a legal remedy, infringement of the principle of legality
(ix) the lack of
and the principle of sound administration;
the
evidence for the Appointing Authority's statement that
content of
is already
included in Case F-51/05.

the request made by the applicant

the applicant puts
As regards the substance of
forward very similar pleas to those which she put forward in
Case F-18/06.

the case,

(1) OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.
(2) 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

Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Pantalis v Commission

(Case F-88/06)

(2006/C 281/80)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Ioannis Pantalis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/45

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul that part of the decision of the Appointing Authority
of 18 April 2006 which concerns:
the Appointing
Authority's implied refusal to adapt the applicant's salary in
accordance with the Staff Regulations in respect of a depen-
dent child for whom he has alternating custody, (b) the
Appointing Authority's refusal
to pay the child's travel
expenses to the applicant's place of origin, in accordance
with the Staff Regulations;

(a)

— order the retrospective payment of those sums with added

interest;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official with alternating custody
of a child whose mother is also an official of the European
Communities, requested, on his return to Brussels after a
period of secondment outside Europe, payment to him of the
allowances and advantages relating to the child. The official
dealing with the file called for the production of the original of
a declaration of agreement between the former spouses on the
readjustment of the applicant's rights in the present case. Since
that declaration was only produced by email, the authorities
did not grant the applicant's requests.

In support of his action, the applicant pleads infringement of
Article 67 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 7 and 8 of
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as interpreted by case-law.
inter alia, that the authorities' discretion is not
He submits,
unlimited and they have a duty to comply with the principles
of
the
sound administration and proportionality. Also,
supporting documents required must be directly linked to the
payment requested and they must be referred to by the applic-
able provisions, or they must be absolutely necessary in order
to set the amount to be paid.

— annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 30 May
2006 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant;

— decide that the applicant continues to have the right to
transfer to Finland 35 % of his net salary, an amount which
is adjusted by the transfer coefficient for that country, from
16 January 2006;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was transferring to Finland, his country of origin,
a part of his salary, as multiplied by a coefficient, in accordance
with Article 17 of Annex VII to the old Staff Regulations. In
the context of a programme of exchange of officials between
the Commission and the Member States, he was transferred to
Finland during the years 2004 and 2005. During this period,
the Commission paid him all of his salary in Finland, increased
by the application of the transfer coefficient. In January 2006,
upon his return to Brussels, the applicant was refused the right
to resume the transfer to Finland of the part of his salary that
he had been transferring before his move. In that regard, the
administration pointed out that the abovementioned provision
had been amended following the entry into force of the new
Staff Regulations, and that the applicant did not satisfy the
condition laid down in Article 17(2)(a) of Annex XIII to the
Staff Regulations for the preservation of that benefit.

In his application, the applicant submits that, since he benefited
from the transfer both during the time of his posting to
Finland and before, his case falls within the circumstances envi-
saged by Article 17(2)(a) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

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

Action brought on 24 August 2006 — Lohiniva v Commis-
sion

(Case F-98/06)

(2006/C 281/81)

Language of the case: Finnish

(Case F-105/06)

(2006/C 281/82)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Risto Lohiniva (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: V.
Teperi, lawyer)

Applicants:
(represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

Johannes Lübking (Brussels, Belgium) and Others

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities