Case F-98/06: Action brought on 24 August 2006 — Lohiniva v Commission
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, Finland, action by staff, capital transfer, pay, reassignment

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