Case F-139/06: Action brought on 11 December 2006 — Kurrer v Commission
Date: 2007-01-27
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, appointment of staff, competition (EU), equal treatment, professional career, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/39

(c) of the General

— The rejection of the complaint is based on implementing
measures [Article 3 (1)
implementing
provisions on the procedures governing the engagement and
the use of contract staff at the Commission] that are beyond
the power delegated to the Commission by Article 86 (6) of
the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the
Communities.

(1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on
completion of professional education and training of at least three
years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16).

(2) Directive 2001/19/EC of

qualifications

the European Parliament and of

the
Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC
and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of profes-
sional
77/452/EEC,
77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC,
80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC
and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for
general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, archi-
tect, pharmacist and doctor (OJ L 2006, p. 1).

Council Directives

and

post within the meaning of Article 12(d) of the Protocol on
the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities
(‘PPI’);

— order the Appointing Authority to pay to the applicant: (i)
the sum of EUR 9 523,26 by way of compensation for his
material loss, plus default interest at the statutory rate from
the date on which it becomes due;
the sum of
EUR 5 000, by way of compensation for his non-material
loss, plus default interest at the statutory rate from the date
on which it becomes due;

(ii)

— reserve judgment concerning that part of the material loss
which still cannot be liquidated and which is represented by
the costs that the applicant has incurred since 18 April
2006 and continues to incur in the framework of
the
dispute between him and the Belgian tax authorities before
Belgian national courts concerning the fixing of the date of
his first taking up of post;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Chassagne v
Commission

In support of his claim, the applicant relies on the following
grounds:

(Case F-137/06)

(2007/C 20/59)

Language of the case: French

— infringement of Article 18 of the PPI;

— infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, of the
principle of sound administration and of the duty to have
regard for the welfare of officials;

— infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate
expectations and the existence of a manifest error of assess-
ment.

Parties

Applicant: Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Appointing Authority refusing to
take an express decision concerning the fixing of the date of
the first taking up of post for the applicant, so far as that
refusal
the
Appointing Authority of 14 January 2006;

from the decision of

implicitly

follows

Action brought on 11 December 2006 — Kurrer v
Commission

(Case F-139/06)

(2007/C 20/60)

Language of the case: French

— annul, so far as is necessary, the decision of the Appointing

Authority rejecting the applicant's complaint;

— state to the Appointing Authority the consequences of the
annulment of the contested decisions, and, in particular, that
it should take an express decision by which it recognises
that the date of 1 July 2002 amounts to a first taking up of

Applicant: Christian Kurrer
(represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen,
Marchal, lawyers)

(Watermael-Boitsfort, Belgium)
J.-N. Louis and E.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

C 20/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.1.2007

Form of order sought

The Tribunal is asked to:

— Annul the decision of the Commission to approve the appli-
cant a probationary official with effect from 1 April 2006
inasmuch as that decision fixes his grade and step as A*6/2
and does not take into account the points he accumulated
as a ‘research’ temporary agent;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 16 January 2004, the applicant entered the service of the
Commission as a ‘research’ temporary agent in Grade A7. As a
successful
in Open Competition COM/A/3/02
published on 25 July 2002 to constitute a reserve list for the
recruitment of administrators in career bracket A7/A6, he was
appointed a probationary official in Grade A*6.

candidate

In view of the undertaking made by the Commission to extend
the effects of possible annulment in pending cases concerning
Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, the applicant
confines himself to relying on breach of the principle of equal
treatment and non-discrimination in relation to former collea-
gues, also ‘research’ temporary agents, who had been successful
in internal competitions and, when established as officials,
retained their grade and accumulated points.

The applicant further asserts in so far as is necessary, that
Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful,
to the extent that it fails to comply with the above-mentioned
principle and the principle of proportionality.

12 April 2006 and of 27 March 2006 respectively,
concerning a transfer from the status of a member of
temporary staff to the status of official;

— Order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the
The applicant, after working for a number of years at
Commission as a member of temporary staff in Grade B*7,
passed open competition PE/34/B of the European Parliament
(Grade B5/B4). Subsequently, he was appointed as a proba-
tionary official
in Grade B*3 by the latter institution, which
immediately transferred him to the Commission, where he was
classified in that same grade.

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

The applicant pleads, moreover, breach of the principle of the
protection of
legitimate expectations and of the principle of
maintenance of rights acquired.

Action brought on 28 December 2006 — Bligny v
Commission

(Case F-142/06)

(2007/C 20/62)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 11 December 2006 — Hartwig v
Commission and Parliament

Parties

(Case F-141/06)

(2007/C 20/61)

Applicant: Francesco Bligny (Tassin-la-Demi-Lune, France) (repre-
sented by: P. Lebel-Nourissat, avocat)

Language of the case: French

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Applicant: Marc Hartwig (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T.
Bontinck, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities and Euro-
pean Parliament

Form of order sought

— annul the individual decisions of the Commission of the
European Communities and of the European Parliament of

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the selection board for competition
EPSO/AD/06/05 of 7 December 2006 and that of
23 November 2006, refusing to admit the applicant to the
competition and therefore to correct his written test;

— find that the application form published on 15 May 2006
the
on the EPSO internet site for use by candidates of
competition was improper;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of

EUR 5 000 in compensation for his loss;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.