Case F-117/06: Action brought on 2 October 2006 — Loy v European Parliament
Date: 2006-12-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, action by staff, indemnification, reassignment, servant (EU)

C 294/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.12.2006

Action brought on 2 October 2006 — Sanchez Ferriz and
Others v Commission

Action brought on 26 September 2006 — Buckingham
and Others v Commission

(Case F-115/06)

(2006/C 294/130)

Language of the case: French

(Case F-116/06)

(2006/C 294/131)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Anne Buckingham (Brussels, Belgium) and Others
(represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Applicants: Carlos Sanchez Ferriz (Brussels, Belgium) and Others
(represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

— set aside the list of officials promoted under the 2005
promotion procedure in so far as that list does not include
the applicants' names and, incidentally, annul the prepara-
tory measures leading to that decision;

— in the alternative, annul the allocation of promotion points
during the promotion procedure mentioned above, in par-
ticular, in consequence of the recommendations made by
the promotion committees;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants put forward five pleas,
alleging:

— in the first, infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regula-

tions;

— in the second,

infringement of

the General Provisions

implementing that article;

— in the third, infringement of the principle of non-discrimi-

nation and a manifest error of assessment;

— in the fourth, infringement of Articles 6 and 10 of Annex

XIII to the Staff Regulations;

— in the fifth, infringement of the principles of the prohibi-
tion of arbitrary procedure and of the prohibition of the
abuse of powers, and infringement of the obligation to state
reasons.

— annul

the decision adopted by the Commission on 23
November 2005, published in Administrative Notices No
85-2005, in that it did not allocate any priority points to
the applicants, officials in grade A*12, recognising the work
carried out in the interests of the institution for 2004;

— in so far as necessary, annul the express decisions of the
Commission rejecting the complaints made by the appli-
cants pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on infringement of Articles 9 and 13 of the
General Provisions for Implementing Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations and, as a subsidiary plea, on the unlawfulness of
the said provisions in that they result in discrimination and
infringe Article 5(5) of the Staff Regulations.

Action brought on 2 October 2006 — Loy v European
Parliament

(Case F-117/06)

(2006/C 294/132)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Maddalena Loy (Rome,
Fratini, lawyer)

Italy)

(represented by: A.

Defendant: European Parliament

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/67

Form of order sought

— annul

the decision of

the European Parliament of 30
January 2006, which informed the applicant of the decision
to reassign her from the Parliament's Italian Information
to the Information Directorate-
Office, based in Rome,
General, based in Brussels, and of the extension of her
temporary contract until 16 July 2006, instead of until 31
December 2009, as previously decided by the Parliament;

— order the defendant to pay, increased by default interest, all
of the monthly salaries connected to the applicant's position
of press attaché in Rome, from the date on which the
temporary contract should have been renewed, that is, from
1 January 2006, until 31 December 2009;

— order the defendant

to pay compensation for material
damage, estimated at EUR 240 414,42, and EUR 500 000
for non-material damage or such higher or lower amount
as the Court may determine;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— the fifth concerns infringement of the principles of propor-
tionality and of sound administration. First, the applicant
received no warning of the possibility of transfer at such
short notice. Second, the facts underlying the transfer were
not properly ascertained and the statutory provisions
relating to the behaviour for which the applicant is criti-
cised were not complied with;

— the sixth concerns infringement of the right of defence, in
particular the fact that the defendant, although having had
the opportunity to hear the applicant, did not follow up
her declarations in any way, and did not give the parties
any opportunity to set out their views on the matter;

— the seventh concerns infringement of the duty to provide
assistance set out in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations,
which requires the administration to protect officials even
where the person responsible for the matters regulated by
the provision in question is another official. Although the
facie
applicant
capable of
advanced prima
supporting her allegations,
the administration took no
adequate measures.

evidence

Action brought on 2 October 2006 — Di Bucci v Commis-
sion

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Case F-118/06)

The applicant invokes seven pleas in support of her action:

(2006/C 294/133)

— the first concerns infringement of the principle of legitimate
expectations, in that the administration gave the applicant
to believe, beyond any reasonable doubt, that her position
as press attaché with the Parliament's Rome Office would
be confirmed and that her contract would be extended until
31 December 2009;

— the second concerns infringement of essential procedural
requirements by reason of an insufficient and contradictory
statement of reasons. In particular, the arguments alleging
insufficiency of the applicant's professional capacities are
contradicted by the reports concerning her drawn up
pursuant to Article 43 of the Staff Regulations;

— the third concerns misuse of powers due to manifest error
of assessment of fundamental circumstances and inconsis-
tency. The reassignment decision is not based on profes-
sional incompetence or on the interests of the service but
on the desire for retaliation on the part of the applicant's
hierarchical superior;

— the fourth is based on breach of the duty of care in that,
the contested decision was
taking

according to the applicant,
adopted without
account of the employee's interests;

the necessary care and without

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vittorio Di Bucci (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
M. van der Woude, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the merit list and the list of officials promoted to
grade A*12 in 2005, drawn up pursuant to Article 10(3)
and (4) of the General Provisions for Implementing Article
45 of the Staff Regulations and published in Administrative
Notice No 85-2005 of 23 November 2005 and,
in any
event, annul the decision not to include the applicant's
name in the list of promoted officials;