Case F-126/06: Action brought on 30 October 2006 — Mangazzù v Commission
Date: 2006-12-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, competition (EU), personnel administration, regulations for civil servants, servant (EU)

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

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/33

Form of order sought

— annul the individual decision concerning a transfer from
temporary staff status to official status contained in an
instrument of appointment
taking effect on 1 January
2005, notified on 13 January 2006;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

in career bracket A7/A6. As a result, he was appointed as an
official in the same post he had occupied as a member of the
temporary staff and classified in Grade A*6, step 2, in accord-
ance with Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations.

In support of his action, the applicant invokes infringement of
Articles 31 and 62 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 5 and
2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

The applicant, after having worked at the Commission for
several years as a temporary agent in Grade A5, then A*11,
was successful in open competition COM/A/18/04, published
on 21 April 2004, to draw up a reserve list for administrators

The applicant moreover submits infringement of the principle
of the protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of the
protection of acquired rights and the principle of equal treat-
ment.