Case F-144/06: Action brought on 22 December 2006 — Bleyaert v Council
Date: 2007-01-27
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European official, action by staff, equal treatment, regulations for civil servants, vocational training

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/41

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, after passing the pre-selection tests for the above-
mentioned competition, was not admitted to the next stage
since, contrary to what was indicated in the notice of competi-
tion published in the Official Journal (1), he had failed to include
with his application form any document proving his citizenship.

In support of his action, the applicant pleads breach of the prin-
ciple of protection of legitimate expectations, of the principle of
sound administration and of the duty to have regard for the
welfare of officials. He submits in particular that, concerning
citizenship, the model application form to be downloaded from
the EPSO internet site merely required an honour declaration
and warned candidates that, on request, they would have to
provide documentary evidence.

(1) OJ C 178 A of 27.7.2005, p. 3.

Action brought on 18 December 2006 — Continolo v
Commission

(Case F-143/06)

(2007/C 20/63)

Language of the case: French

11 June 1981 to 1 March 1983 only 5 months, 6 days of
pensionable service, instead of 8 months, 20 days;

— annul the decision of the Commission of 5 September 2006

dismissing the applicant's complaint;

— indicate to the Commission the consequences of the annul-
ment of the contested decisions,
in particular, concerning
the percentage acquired, currently fixed at 66.66666 %,
which must be recalculated to take account of the months
of January and February 1983;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former Commission official, has been retired
since 1 January 2006. In his action, he contests the decision of
the Commission concerning the award and calculation of his
the
pension rights inasmuch as that decision discloses that
rights which he acquired for the period of his leave on personal
grounds, in respect of which he had obtained a transfer into the
Community system, have not been wholly credited.

The applicant relies, first, on breach of the principle of protec-
tion of legitimate expectations, of the principle of sound admin-
istration and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of offi-
cials and, secondly, on a manifest error of assessment and of a
breach of the duty to state reasons.

Action brought on 22 December 2006 — Bleyaert v
Council

Parties

Applicant: Donato Continolo (Duino, Italy) (represented by: S.
Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz and R. Albelice, lawyers)

(Case F-144/06)

(2007/C 20/64)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

The Tribunal is asked to:

Parties

— annul the decision of the Commission of 3 January 2006
concerning the award and calculation of
the applicant's
pension rights to the extent that it credits the period which
the applicant spent on leave on personal grounds from

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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

C 20/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.1.2007

Form of order sought

— annul

the decision of

the Appointing Authority not

to
include the applicant's name on the list of officials selected
to follow the training programme in the framework of the
certification procedure for 2005;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Council official in Grade AST 8, applied for the
certification procedure for 2005. His name, which appeared in
the draft
selected to follow the training
programme in the framework of the 2005 certification exercise,
was not included in the definitive list, published on 22 May
2006, which the Appointing Authority adopted taking into

list of officials

account the opinion of the joint committee for the certification
procedure. That committee had heard the applicant on 17 May
2006.

In support of his action, the applicant relies, first, on breach of
the duty to state reasons, especially as the Appointing Authority
did not reply to his complaint. Moreover, the applicant asserts
the infringement of Article 45a of the Staff Regulations and
Article 5 of the general provisions implementing that article of
the joint committee, which
those Regulations.
could hear only officials who challenged the draft list, was not
entitled to summon the applicant. In any event, the applicant
claims that the principle of equal treatment was also infringed,
in that the joint committee did not hear all the officials whose
names were included on the draft list.

In particular,