Case F-123/06: Action brought on 23 October 2006 — Timmer v Court of Auditors
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Court of Auditors, action by staff, indemnification, personnel administration, professional career, staff assessment

C 326/84

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Action brought on 29 September 2006 — Spee v Europol

Action brought on 23 October 2006 — Timmer v Court of
Auditors

(Case F-121/06)

(2006/C 326/169)

Language of the case: Dutch

(Case F-123/06)

(2006/C 326/170)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: David Spee (Rijswijk, Netherlands) (represented by: D.
C. Coppens, lawyer)

Applicant: Marianne Timmer (Saint Sauves d'Auvergne, France)
(represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Form of order sought

Forms of order sought

— Annul Europol's decision of 5 July 2006;

— annulment of all the applicant's staff reports drawn up by

M.L.;

— Order Europol to grant two incremental points to the appli-

cant with effect from 1 November 2005;

— annulment of the connected and/or subsequent decisions,

including that appointing M.L.;

— Order Europol to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges the decision to grant him only an
increase in salary corresponding to one of
the incremental
points referred to in Article 29 of the Staff Regulations applic-
able to Europol employees, when, in his opinion, he was entitled
to an increase corresponding to two increments.

He submits that Europol took into consideration not only the
assessment provided for in Article 29 of the Staff Regulations of
Europol, but also the assessment provided for in Article 28 of
those same Regulations. By acting in that way, the administra-
tion retroactively applied the document of 24 March 2006
‘Policy on the Determination of Salary Scale and Incremental
Points of Europol Staff’
legal
in breach of
certainty.

the principle of

Furthermore, the applicant claims that, even if the administra-
tion was entitled to take into consideration the two assessments,
the method applied is arithmetically incorrect and disadvanta-
geous for the worker.

— an order for the payment of compensation for the material
damage corresponding to the loss of
income which the
applicant has suffered in relation to the situation she would
have been in if she had been promoted each time that she
theoretically could have been during the period of her work
under M.L.'s orders;

— an order for the payment of EUR 250 000 compensation
for pain and suffering and for the effects which the unlawful
treatment referred to above had on the applicant's health;

— an order for the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action, the applicant first submits that her
career has been hampered, to the point of excluding her from
the service, in order to allow her superior to continue in the
unlawful exercise of his/her duties. The delay in bringing the
action is due to the fact that the applicant learnt that the deci-
sions on her career were unlawful only on the discovery of new
facts which affected the validity of her staff reports, namely, in
particular: (i) a twofold failure by her superior to observe Article
11a of the Staff Regulations; (ii) that her superior's length of
service was insufficient when he/she was appointed; (iii) illegal-
ities in connection with competition CC/LA/18/82;
the
unlawful filling of a post that the applicant could have filled; (v)
her superiors' personal interest; (vi) the omission of disciplinary
measures.

(iv)

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/85

first, a complete failure to give
The applicant also alleges,
reasons for the decisions concerning her which were adopted by
the General Secretariat of the Court of Auditors and, secondly,
illegalities in the disciplinary procedures followed by that that
institution.

The applicant adds that the contested decision is vitiated by a
manifest error of assessment as regards the nature of her illness,
which indeed deteriorated due to her return to work and the
stress linked to her carrying out her professional duties.

Action brought on 3 November 2006 — H v Council

Action brought on 16 November 2006 — Salvador Roldán
v Commission

(Case F-127/06)

(2006/C 326/171)

Language of the case: French

(Case F-129/06)

(2006/C 326/172)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Forms of order sought

— annul the Council's decision of 15 March 2006 automati-
cally to retire the applicant on 31 March 2006 in so far as it
allows her an invalidity pension pursuant to the first para-
graph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who was retired with effect from 30 April 2003
due to her invalidity, was reintegrated on 1 November 2004.
Following a number of absences due to illness, the Council once
again retired her and granted her
the invalidity allowance
provided for in the first paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff
Regulations, with effect from 1 April 2006.

In support of her action, the applicant claims that the Invalidity
Committee did not rule on the origin of her illness or on a
possible causal link between the deterioration of her illness and
her working conditions. In those circumstances, the Council did
not have the necessary information to determine whether the
applicant was entitled to the allowance provided for by the first
paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations or the one
provided for in the fifth paragraph of that article. The Council's
choice, less favourable to the applicant, is unlawful.

Applicant: Rocío Salvador Roldán (Brussels, Belgium)
sented by: F. Tuytschaever and H. Burez, lawyers)

(repre-

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the Decision of the Appointing Authority in response
to the complaint lodged by the applicant (No R/320/06) of
18 August 2006;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant the amounts corre-
sponding to the expatriation allowance to which she is
entitled, with effect from 1 April 2006, together with a
default interest of 7 % from the date each amount fell due
until the actual date of payment;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The application is based upon two pleas in law:

1) The

contests

applicant

the Commission's

conclusion
according to which she does not comply with the condition
provided for in the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex
VII to the Staff Regulations for the payment of the expatria-
tion allowance. The applicant claims that the contested deci-
sion incorrectly holds that she habitually resided in Belgium
during the reference period. In particular, in her opinion, the
provision of services by the applicant to an international law
firm established in Belgium does not entail the consequence
that she had established lasting ties in that Member State.