Case F-136/06: Action brought on 30 November 2006 — Reali v Commission
Date: 2007-01-27
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, professional experience, recognition of diplomas, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), work contract

C 20/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.1.2007

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Action brought on 31 October 2006 — Molina Solano v
Europol

Action brought on 30 November 2006 — Reali v
Commission

(Case F-124/06)

(2007/C 20/57)

(Case F-136/06)

(2007/C 20/58)

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Beatriz Molina Solano (Rijswijk, Netherlands) (repre-
sented by: D.C. Coppens, lawyer)

Applicant: Enzo Reali
Pappas, Lawyer)

(Sofia, Bulgaria)

(represented by: S. A.

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The Tribunal is asked to:

— annul the decision taken on the applicant's complaint by
Europol on 1 August 2006 and Europol's initial decision of
27 January 2006;

— order Europol to award the applicant an incremental point

with effect from 1 January 2005;

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the Decision of the authority authorised to conclude
contracts of employment dated 30 August 2006 in response
to the complaint lodged on 7 July 2006 by Mr Enzo Reali;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

— order Europol to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following a complaint, Europol awarded the applicant one of
the incremental points referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 29
of the Europol Staff Regulations with effect from 1 July 2005.
In her action, the applicant asks that that incremental point
should be awarded to her with effect from 1 January 2005. In
support of her claims, she asserts that, according to the policy
for managing incremental points which Europol was applying at
the time of the facts at issue, the mark which she had obtained
gave her the right to a step with effect from 1 January 2005. In
denying her this benefit, which had been accorded to other
agents who had received comparable marks, Europol was in
breach of the principle of equal treatment. The applicant relies
in addition on breach of the principles of legal certainty and
impartiality, and the prohibition on acting arbitrarily.

The applicant is a contractual agent classified in Fonction Group
IV, grade 14. He claims that he should have been classified in
grade 16, because in the calculation of his professional experi-
ence the Commission should have considered his degree (Laurea
in Scienze Agrarie) as a Bachelor Degree plus a Master.

In support of his action, the applicant pleads that:

— The Commission breached Directive 89/48/EEC (1),

as
amended by Directive 2001/19/EC (2), and the principle of
subsidiarity, by refusing to recognise that the Applicant's
degree is equivalent to a ‘Bachelor Degree plus a Master’
even though the equivalence had previously been clearly
recognised at national level by his University;

— The Commission breached the principle of non-discrimina-
tion by unduly refusing to count the Applicant's Master as a
year of professional experience;

— The attacked decision is illegal due to a manifest error of
assessment in the calculation of the professional experience
of the Applicant and to a lack of motivation;

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