Case F-100/06: Action brought on 31 August 2006 — Simon v Court of Justice and Commission
Date: 2006-12-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, European Commission, European official, action by staff, administrator, regulations for civil servants, rights of civil servants

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/65

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber)
of 19 October 2006 — Combescot v Commission

Defendants: Court of Justice of the European Communities and
Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-114/05) (1)

(Officials — Appeal — Time-limits — Implied rejection —
Explicit refusal, notified at a later stage, to reopen the period
for lodging an appeal — Legal interest in bringing proceed-
ings — Inadmissibility)

Form of order sought

(2006/C 294/128)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Philippe Combescot
sented by: A. Maritati and V. Messa, lawyers)

(Popayán, Colombia)

(repre-

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
Joris and M. Velardo, Agents, assisted by S.
sented by: V.
Corongiu, lawyer)

Re:

First, annulment of the Commission's decision to reassign the
applicant, in the interests of the service, from the Commission's
delegation in Guatemala to its Brussels headquarters under the
secondly, an application for
2003 rotation scheme and,
damages

Operative part of the judgment

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Each party shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 22, 28.1.2006, p. 22 (case initially registered before the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-
422/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European
Union by order of 15.12.2005)

Action brought on 31 August 2006 — Simon v Court of
Justice and Commission

(Case F-100/06)

(2006/C 294/129)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Balázs Simon (Brussels, Belgium)
György Magyar, lawyer)

(represented by:

— annul: (i) the decision of the Appointing Authority of the
Court of Justice of 23 February 2006; (ii) the decision of
the Appointing Authority of the Commission of 3 March
2006; (iii) the decision of the Appointing Authority of the
Commission of 30 May 2006;
the
Appointing Authority of the Court of Justice of 27 June
2006, in so far as those decisions deprive the applicant of
the rights to which his appointment as a probationary offi-
cial on 16 July 2004 entitles him, and thus of his length of
service and grade, and of the rights to which his appoint-
ment as an established official on 16 April 2005, that is to
say, his definitive appointment, entitles him;

the decision of

(iv)

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

After having brought Case F-58/06 (1), the applicant now chal-
lenges both the decisions of the Court of Justice to accept his
resignation offered in his statement of 28 October 2005 and
the decisions of the Commission fixing his classification at
grade A*5.

In support of his action, the applicant puts forward two pleas,
alleging, in the first, a breach of the principle prohibiting the
withdrawal of rights guaranteed by the Staff Regulations and
interference with acquired rights, and, in the second, misuse of
powers and an interference with acquired rights.

In his first plea, the applicant, inter alia, submits that, by his
statement of 28 October 2005 he did not intend to leave the
body of officials, but only to change his place of work and
function. Thus, he did not forfeit his acquired rights.

In his second plea, the applicant maintains, inter alia, that, even
supposing that by his statement he had waived his status as an
official, such waiver would be illegal on the ground that the
defendants made it the de facto condition in order for him to
be transferred from one institution to another. In addition, the
applicant alleges that, in so far as he had been appointed an
official at grade A*7 by the Court of Justice, he fulfils the
conditions required in order to be classified in that grade, with
the result that his classification by the Commission in grade
A*5 constitutes a misuse of power that deprives him of his
acquired rights.

(1) OJ C 190, 12.8.2006, p. 35.