Case F-129/06: Action brought on 16 November 2006 — Salvador Roldán v Commission
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, allowances and expenses, regulations for civil servants

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.

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.