Case F-113/06: Action brought on 29 September 2006 — Bouis and Others v Commission
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, promotion, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/49

In support of his action, the applicant puts forward a first plea
in law alleging breach of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations,
a manifest error of assessment and an error of law, in that the
criteria established in the case-law relating to the exceptional
nature of his qualifications and the specific needs of the service
were not applied. Next, the applicant puts forward a second
plea in law alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons
and a third plea in law alleging failure to observe the principle
of equal treatment, in that 10 to 15 of his colleagues, whose
legal and factual situations are not essentially different from the
applicant's, were, unlike the applicant, classified or reclassified
in grade A6.

particular, the appointing authority, in adopting the contested
decisions, failed to comply with the time-limits laid down in
Article 34 of the Staff Regulations and failed, among other
things, to ensure that the conditions of the applicant's proba-
tionary period were proper.

The second plea in law alleges misuse of powers and abuse of
process by the Complaints Committee of the Court of Justice.

The third plea in law alleges breach of the principles of sound
administration and good management and interference with
the rights of the defence.

(1) OJEC C 125/A, 23.4.1998, p. 10.

Action brought on 22 September 2006 — Krčová v Court
of Justice

(Case F-112/06)

(2006/C 281/87)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 29 September 2006 — Bouis and
Others v Commission

(Case F-113/06)

(2006/C 281/88)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Erika Krčová (Trnava, Slovakia) (represented by: S.
Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities

Applicants: Didier Bouis (Overijse, Belgium) and Others (repre-
sented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the Court of Justice's decision of 18 October 2005 to
dismiss the applicant at the end of her probationary period
and, in so far as necessary, the Court of Justice's decisions
of 16 September 2005, extending her probationary period
for two months from the preceding 1 August, and of 12
September 2005, establishing a probation report recom-
mending the applicant's dismissal;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action, the applicant invokes three pleas in
law, the first of which alleges breach of Article 34 of the Staff
Regulations, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare
of officials, manifest error of assessment, failure to state the
grounds and breach of essential procedural requirements. In

— declare that Article 13 of the General Provisions for imple-
is

the Staff Regulations

(GPI)

menting Article 45 of
unlawful;

— annul the merit list and the list of officials promoted to
grade A*13 in the 2005 promotion procedure, in so far as
the applicants' names are not included;

— annul the decisions to award transitional priority points to
the applicants, in that these points are limited to one point
per year of seniority in grade up to a maximum of 7 points
without taking into account the real merits of the appli-
cants;

— annul the decisions to award to the applicants neither the
priority points awarded by the Directors and Directors-
General, nor the priority points awarded by the Promotion
Committee, in particular in recognition of work undertaken
in the interest of the institution in the 2003 and 2004
promotion procedures;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

C 281/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the
contested decisions disregard the scope of Article 45 of the
Staff Regulations, which imposes on the Appointing Authority
the obligation to choose officials that are to be promoted essen-
tially on the basis of a consideration of their comparative
merits.

They also claim that Article 13 of the GPI, as interpreted and
applied by the Commission, is unlawful, since it disregards the
scope of the provision which it is supposed to implement as
well as the general principle of equal treatment and non-discri-
mination.

Action brought on 29 September 2006 — Liotti v
Commission

(Case F-114/06)

(2006/C 281/89)

Language of the case: French

— in the alternative, annul the allocation of promotion points
in the abovementioned promotion procedure, in particular,
following the recommendations of the Promotion Commit-
tees;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant relies on the seven
following pleas in law:

— first, infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

— second,

infringement of the general

implementing provi-

sions for that article;

— third, infringement of the principle of non-discrimination,

and a manifest error of assessment;

— fourth, infringement of the principles of prohibition of arbi-
trary procedures and of abuse of powers, and also infringe-
ment of the duty to state reasons;

— fifth, infringement of the principle of protection of legiti-
mate expectations, and of the rule ‘Patere legem quam ipse
fecisti’ (obey the rules which you yourself have made);

— seventh, infringement of the duty to have regard for the

welfare of officials.

Parties

Applicant: Amerigo Liotti (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (repre-
sented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the list of officials promoted in the 2005 promotion
procedure, in so far as that list does not include the appli-
cant's name, and also, by way of an incidental measure, the
preparatory measures for those decisions;

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 October 2006 —
Grunheid v Commission

(Case F-35/06) (1)

(2006/C 281/90)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case
be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 143, 17.06.2006.