Case F-131/06: Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Steinmetz v Commission
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), allowances and expenses, indemnification, rights of civil servants

C 326/86

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

that

2) The applicant submits that the contested decision should be
annulled because it breaches the principle of non-discrimina-
tion. First, she raises a plea of illegality of the second indent
of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. She
argues
this provision unduly makes a difference
between, on the one hand, officials who performed, in the
same Member State in which they were recruited by a Euro-
pean institution, duties in the service of another State or of
an international organisation and, on the other hand, offi-
cials, such as the applicant, whose situations are also charac-
terised by a lack of lasting ties with the Member State they
used to work in before being recruited by a European institu-
tion. Second,
the Commission
applied the abovementioned provision in a discriminatory
manner, in so far as it did not take into account the personal
circumstances of the applicant demonstrating that she had
not intended to establish lasting ties in Belgium.

the applicant claims that

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, after having worked at
the Commission for
several years as a member of temporary staff in Grade A5, then
in open competition EPSO/A/18/04 to
A*11, was successful
draw up a reserve list for administrators 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 classi-
fied in Grade A*6, step 2, in accordance 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 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.

Action brought on 13 November 2006 — Sotgia v
Commission

(Case F-130/06)

(2006/C 326/173)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Steinmetz v
Commission

(Case F-131/06)

(2006/C 326/174)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Stefano Sotgia (Dublin, Ireland)
Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

(represented by: T.

Applicant: Robert Steinmetz (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (repre-
sented by: J. Choucroun, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Form of order sought by the applicant

— annul the Commission's decision of 21 February 2006 not
to give full effect to an agreement binding on the parties;

— annul the individual decision concerning a transfer from
temporary staff status to official status taking effect on 16
April 2006, notified on 2 May 2006;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant token compensa-
tion of EUR 1 for the non-material damage suffered as a
result of the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/87

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant concluded an agreement with the Commission
intended to bring to an end by amicable settlement the dispute
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-155/05 (1).

by virtue of retroactive application of the United Kingdom
weighting to the applicant's pension with effect from 1
April 2004;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

The applicant alleges that the Commission failed to give full
effect to the terms of the agreement.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, he alleges in particular breach by the
Commission of the principle of legality, the principle of pacta
sunt servanda, the principle of the protection of legitimate expec-
tations, the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and
the principle of sound administration.

(1) OJ C 155, 25.06.2006, p. 26.

Action brought on 29 November 2006 — Bordini v
Commission

(Case F-134/06)

(2006/C 326/175)

Language of the case: French

In support of his application, the applicant argues, first, that the
contested decision is contrary to the principle of the obligation
to state reasons, in so far as it is framed in terms so vague that
it is not possible to understand the underlying reasoning.

The applicant additionally invokes infringement of Article 82 of
the former Staff Regulations and Article 20 of Annex XIII to the
new Staff Regulations; a manifest error of assessment of the
facts giving rise to an error in law; breach of the principle of
proportionality; and failure to respect the right to privacy.

Lastly, the applicant submits that the Commission was in breach
of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the
principle of sound administration.

Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Lafleur-Tighe v
Commission

(Case F-135/06)

(2006/C 326/176)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Giovanni Bordini
sented by: L. Levi, C. Ronzi and I. Perego, lawyers)

(Dover, United Kingdom)

(repre-

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Forms of order sought

— annul

the decision of 25 January 2006 by which the
appointing authority refused to recognise that the applicant
was resident in the United Kingdom and, in consequence,
refused to apply the weighting for the United Kingdom to
his pension;

— order the defendant to pay interest — on the basis of a rate
two points higher than the rate fixed by the European
Central Bank, and applicable during the period concerned,
for major refinancing operations — on the amounts payable

Applicant: Virgine Lafleur-Tighe (Makati, Philippines) (represented
by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the appointing authority placing the
applicant in grade 13, step 1, on the date of her recruitment
as a contractual agent, in so far as that decision is to be
signed on
inferred from the contract of employment
22 December 2005;