Case F-82/06: Action brought on 21 July 2006 — Duyster v Commission
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, parental leave, staff regulations (EU)

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