Case F-121/06: Action brought on 29 September 2006 — Spee v Europol
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, Europol, action by staff, pay, personnel administration, regulations for civil servants

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)