Case F-122/06: Action brought on 23 October 2006 — Roodhuijzen v Commission
Date: 2006-12-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, equal treatment, health insurance, marriage

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/31

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Action brought on 26 October 2006 — Dálnoky v
Commission

nian citizens on Romanian mother tongue are in an unfair
advantage;

(Case F-120/06)

(2006/C 310/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Noémi Dálnoky (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
P. Horváth, lawyer)

— it constitutes a discrimination on the grounds of nationality
which is forbidden by the Staff Regulations and Article 12
EC,
in earlier competitions, candidates were
allowed to prove a thorough knowledge of a Community
language which was not the most widely spoken language
in their Member State;

insofar as,

— it poses a requirement that is not permitted by the Staff
Regulations, which only allows requiring the thorough
knowledge of a particular Community language, as opposed
to any one of them, if there is a specific job-related need or
this is justified by some other objective and legitimate
policy.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

(1) OJ C 145 A, 21.6.2006

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/47/06 (1)
published by the European Personnel Selection Office
(EPSO) for the recruitment of administrators with — inter
alia — Romanian citizenship;

— order the defendant not to publish in future any competi-
tion, and not to conduct any published competition with
the requirement to have a thorough knowledge of just one
specified Community language, but with the requirement to
have a thorough knowledge on any of the Community
languages, unless a particular language is required in view
of the specific nature of the posts to be filled;

— if the abovementioned open competition was partially or
fully conducted prior to its annulment by the Tribunal,
order the defendant to eliminate any disadvantage suffered
by the applicant or other persons due to the discriminatory
provision applied in the competition, including the provi-
sion of another possibility to apply for the posts that were
to be filled by Competition EPSO/AD/47/06 for those citi-
zens who might have been discouraged from applying due
to the abovementioned discriminatory provision;

Action brought on 23 October 2006 — Roodhuijzen v
Commission

(Case F-122/06)

(2006/C 310/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Anton Pieter Roodhuijzen (Luxembourg, Luxem-
bourg) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Romanian citizen of Hungarian ethnicity and
mother tongue, claims that the Notice of Open Competition
EPSO/AD/47/06 is, by requiring that applicants must have a
thorough knowledge of Romanian language, in breach of EC
law on several points:

— annul

the decision of

the Appointing Authority of 28
February 2006, confirmed on 20 March 2006, not
to
recognise the applicant's partnership with Ms H as a non-
marital partnership for the purposes of the sickness insur-
ance scheme;

— annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 12 July
2006 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on
27 March 2006 under Number R/230/06;

— it violates the applicant's rights to equal treatment and non-
discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin, since Roma-

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

C 310/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official of Dutch nationality,
requested that his partnership with Ms H, a cohabitation agree-
ment drawn up before a notary and recognised under Dutch
law, be taken into consideration in order that his partner could
benefit from the Community sickness insurance scheme. The
administration rejected the request, even after the applicant
produced a certificate from his country's Embassy in Luxem-
bourg, which stated that the contract in question does indeed
confer the status of stable non-marital partners on the applicant
and his companion.

In support of his action, the applicant relies on a plea of infrin-
gement of Article 72 of
the Staff Regulations, of Article
1(2)(c)(i) of Annex VII thereof, and of Article 12 of the Rules
on the insurance of officials of the European Communities
against the risk of accident and of occupational disease. He also
pleads a manifest error of assessment, breach of the obligation
to give reasons and failure to observe general principles of law,
in particular the principle of non-discrimination and equal
treatment between officials.

When he was Director of the DG for Budget and classed at
Grade A2 (now A*15), the applicant applied for the position of
Director-General
(Grade A1) of DG Internal Audit Service,
advertised in vacancy notice COM/228/03 (1). His application
being successful, he was promoted to the abovementioned
position and classed in Grade A*15, step 4.

In support of his action, the applicant first submits that the
contested decision infringes both Article 45 of the Staff Regula-
tions, according to which promotion entails the appointment
of the official to the next higher grade in the function group to
which he belongs, and the vacancy notice which forms,
according to Community case-law, the legal framework within
which the procedure must be carried out.

The applicant also pleads that the case-law according to which
it is the vacancy notice which sets the precise level at which
the post will be filled, and Article 31 of the Staff Regulations
were disregarded.

Action brought on 30 October 2006 — Deffaa v Commis-
sion

in the alternative,

the applicant submits that

Finally,
the
Commission, by refusing the advancement in step provided for
in Article 44(2) of the Staff Regulations, wrongly restricted the
scope of that provision, on the basis in particular of a mistaken
interpretation of Article 7(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regula-
tions, which provides for an increase in the monthly salary
is not connected to the
which, according to the applicant,
advancement in step.

(Case F-125/06)

(2006/C 310/68)

Language of the case: French

(1) OJ C 301 A, 12.12.2003, p. 1.

Parties

Applicant: Walter Deffaa (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S.
Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 30 October 2006 — Mangazzù v
Commission

(Case F-126/06)

(2006/C 310/69)

Form of order sought

Language of the case: French

— annul the decision of the President of the Commission of
12 January 2006 in so far as it classifies the applicant, who
was promoted to Director-General of DG Internal Audit
Service, at Grade A*15, step 4, with effect from 1 August
2004;

Parties

— in the alternative, annul that decision in that it refuses the
applicant the advance in step provided for in Article 44(2)
of the Staff Regulations;

Applicant: Salvatore Mangazzù (Brussels, Belgium) (represented
by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities