Case F-119/06: Action brought on 9 October 2006 — Kerstens v Commission
Date: 2006-12-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, appointment of staff, reassignment, staff assessment

C 294/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.12.2006

— in so far as necessary, annul all of the measures which led
to the adoption of that decision and, in particular, the deci-
sions setting the number of points to be awarded to the
applicant;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official assigned to the Legal Service who has
regularly obtained one of the highest assessments, in terms of
merit points (MP), in his grade and in his department, invokes
firstly infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and
of the General Provisions for implementing that article, which
require merit to be the determining factor for the awarding of
Directorate-General
(DG) priority points and for promotion.
The non-promotion of the applicant is the result, first, of the
unlawful conduct which he has already challenged in Cases F-
98/05 (1) and T-312/04 (2); second, of the criteria for awarding
DG priority points within the Legal Service, which give priority
to the most senior officials in the grade, irrespective of their
merit; third, of certain flaws in the awarding of points, in par-
ticular by the Promotion Committee, to other officials.

The applicant further alleges that the contested measures also
infringe the principle of equal treatment and the principle that
include a
officials should have reasonable career prospects,
manifest error of assessment and constitute a misuse of powers.
Finally,
formal
they are marred by several procedural or
defects.

Finally, the applicant pleads the illegality of the abovemen-
tioned General Provisions, arguing as follows:

of MPs and DG priority points, Article 9 of and Annex I to
the General Provisions infringe Article 45 of the Staff Regu-
lations as well as the principle that officials should have
reasonable career prospects and the principle of equal treat-
ment;

— by providing for more favourable treatment for officials of
DGs or services that have fewer staff and for officials
seconded to the offices of members of the Commission,
Article 6(2) of the General Provisions infringes Article 45 of
the Staff Regulations as well as the principle that officials
should have reasonable career prospects and the principle
of equal treatment.

(1) OJ C 10 of 14.1.2006, p. 24 (case initially registered before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number
T-381/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of 15.12.2005).

(2) OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004, p. 45.

Action brought on 9 October 2006 — Kerstens v Commis-
sion

(Case F-119/06)

(2006/C 294/134)

Language of the case: French

— by omitting to take into account the level of responsibility
deployed and the use of different languages in the perfor-
mance of duties, the General Provisions infringe the new
version of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

Parties

— by providing that promotions are to be determined by the
unreasoned awarding of priority points, on the proposal of
each DG or the Promotion Committee, Articles 2, 4, 5, 6,
8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of the General Provisions infringe in
particular Articles 25(2) and 45 of the Staff Regulations;

— by attributing to each DG a uniform quota of points per
official, Articles 4 and 6 of the General Provisions infringe
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the principle that offi-
cials should have reasonable career prospects, and the prin-
ciple of equal treatment;

— by providing for the award of transitional priority points
based essentially on seniority within a grade, Article 13(2)
of and Annex II to the General Provisions infringe Article
45 of the Staff Regulations;

— by providing for the awarding of priority points of the
Personnel Committee in recognition of certain supplemen-
tary tasks undertaken in the interest of
the institution
which are already taken into account during the awarding

Applicant: Petrus J. F. Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented
by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of 8 December 2005 of the Board of the
Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitle-
ments (PMO) amending the PMO's organisation chart;

— annul the express decision of the Appointing Authority of
6 July 2006 rejecting the applicant's complaint No R/
167/06;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant a sum assessed

on equitable principles at EUR 5 000as damages;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/69

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, formerly head of the ‘Resources’ Unit of the
PMO, challenges the contested decision of 8 December 2005,
which has the effect of reassigning him to a research position.
He claims infringement of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations in
that the reassignment decision in question is contrary to the
interests of the service and does not respect the principle of
assignment to an equivalent post. The applicant invokes in the
second place
statutory provisions
concerning disciplinary sanctions. Third, he alleges misuse of
powers.

infringement of

the

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 October 2006 —
Martin Magone v Commission

(Case F-36/06) (1)

(2006/C 294/135)

Language of the case: French

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

(1) OJ C 96, 22.04.2005.