Case F-111/06: Action brought on 25 September 2006 — Giannopoulos v Council
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Council of the European Union, action by staff, administrator, competition (EU), professional qualifications, recruitment, 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.

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.