Case F-110/06: Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Carpi Badía v Commission
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, promotion, staff assessment

C 281/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2006

The applicant claims that, rather than the remedying of the
situation created by the technical problem, the intervention of
the A* Promotion Committee and of the Appointing Authority
themselves gave rise to procedural irregularities. Thus the A*
Promotion Committee exceeded its authority and its powers in
proposing to allocate a lower number of points to the applicant
than had been proposed by his superiors, once the technical
problem had been discovered. Furthermore, both the A*
Promotion Committee and the Appointing Authority failed to
undertake a real consideration of the applicant's comparative
merits.

Action brought on 25 September 2006 — Giannopoulos v
Council

(Case F-111/06)

(2006/C 281/86)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Carpi Badía v
Commission

(Case F-110/06)

(2006/C 281/85)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: José María Carpi Badía (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)
(represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Appointing Authority to allocate
to the applicant an insufficient number of priority points to
allow his promotion in the 2005 promotion procedure and
to promote him in that promotion procedure, as
not
confirmed by the Decision of 6 June 2006, rejecting the
applicant's complaint No R/74/06;

Parties

Applicant: Nikos Giannopoulos (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium)
(represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— annul the applicant's classification decision as stated in the
establishment decision of 18 November 2003 in that it
awards him grade A7;

— annul,

in so far as necessary, the appointing authority's

decision rejecting the applicant's complaint;

— indicate to the appointing authority the effects of the annul-
ment of the contested decisions, and in particular: (i) the
applicant is to be reclassified in grade A6, in order to take
account of the exceptional nature of his qualifications and
the specific needs of the service, with retroactive effect to
18 November 2003; (ii) the applicant is to be reclassified in
a step which takes account of his professional experience
and is, at least, equivalent to that granted to him on the
date of his recruitment; (iii) the applicant is to be paid the
difference between the salary corresponding to the grade
and step in which he was classified and that corresponding
to the grade and step in which he ought to have been clas-
sified, plus default interest at the statutory rate from the
date on which the amount in question became payable;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— order the defendant to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on in this case are
almost identical to those relied on in Case F-109/06, the notice
concerning which is published in this issue of
the Official
Journal of the European Union.

The applicant, a successful candidate in open competition EUR/
A/127 (1) for the constitution of a reserve for the future recruit-
ment of administrators A7/A6, was recruited by the General
Secretariat of the Council and classified in grade A7. Having
learnt in July 2005 that other successful candidates in competi-
tions for grades A7/A6 had been recruited by the General
Secretariat in grade A6, or reclassified in that grade following
an internal administrative review of the initial classification
decisions, the applicant submitted a request for reclassification.
That request was rejected by the administration, as was the
complaint which he subsequently submitted.