Case F-7/07: Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Angioi v Commission
Date: 2007-01-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, equal treatment, official language, recruitment, servant (EU)

C 69/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.3.2007

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of
13 February 2007 — Guarneri v Commission

Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Angioi v Commis-
sion

(Case F-62/06) (1)

(Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Depen-
dent child allowance — Rule against overlapping allowances
applicable to national allowances)

(Case F-7/07)

(2007/C 69/61)

Language of the case: French

(2007/C 69/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Daniela Guarneri
(represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

(Woluwe-Saint-Étienne, Belgium)

Applicant: Marie-Thérèse Angioi
sented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

(Valenciennes, France)

(repre-

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Curall and D. Martin, Agents)

Form of order sought

Re:

Annulment of the Commission's decision of 5 August 2005
applying the rule against overlapping allowances laid down in
Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations to the deduction of the
Belgian orphans' pension from the family allowance received by
the applicant and also annulment of the Appointing Authority's
decision of 14 February 2006 rejecting the
applicant's
complaint against the contested decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1. Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Commu-
nities of 5 August 2005 in so far as it deducts the amount of the
from the
Belgian orphans' pension received by Mme Guarneri
family allowance paid to her;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the

costs;

4. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 15.7.2006, p. 35.

— annul the decision of 14 February 2006 of the European
Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)
laying down the appli-
cant's results in the pre-selection tests for contract agents
EU 25;

— annul

the decision of EPSO and/or of

the Selection
Committee not to register the applicant in the data base of
candidates who had passed the pre-selection tests;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of her
action.

By her first plea, the applicant claims that the Call for expression
of interest published by EPSO on 20 June 2005 is contrary to
Article 12(1) EC and Article 82(1) and (3)(e) of the Conditions
of Employment of Other Servants. It criticises in particular the
fact that the Call for expression of interest defined the candi-
dates' main language as that of their nationality (or, in the case
of countries with more than one official language, the language
of their compulsory education) and provided for pre-selection
tests to be held, for each candidate, in a language other than
their main language and for a choice to be made between
English, French and German. Those provisions meant that candi-
dates, first, were prevented from declaring as their principal
language another Community language of which they had thor-
ough knowledge without however having the corresponding
nationality and, second, were obliged to take the tests in one of
the three aforementioned languages. The system gives rise to
differential
treatment based on nationality which cannot be
objectively justified by the requirements of the functions to be
performed.

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/31

The second plea alleges infringement of the principles of sound
administration, equal treatment, objectivity and protection of
legitimate expectations in that the applicant's pre-selection tests
were marred by incidents which disturbed her and deprived her
of some of the time allowed to her, without her having been
authorised to start the tests over again or be granted extra time.

By her third plea, the applicant alleges, first, infringement of the
principle of equal treatment in that the questions put were
chosen in a random manner in a base containing questions of
very varying levels, the validity of some of which was dubious
and, second,
infringement of the principles of protection of
legitimate expectations and transparency and the obligation to
state reasons in that EPSO did not provide her with the ques-
tions put to her.

step 8. In support of her claim, the applicant relies on pleas in
law which are very similar to those put forward in Case T-47/
05. Moreover, she submits that, despite her new classification,
the system arising from the reform of the Staff Regulations calls
into question the effectiveness of her change of category from C
to B, since the new classification does not confer any benefit on
the applicant when her situation is compared with that of her
colleagues who have not been successful in a competition for
change of category.

(1) Case T-47/05 Angé Serrano and Others v Parliament, OJ C 93,

14.4.2005, p. 36.

Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Angé Serrano v
Parliament

(Case F-9/07)

(2007/C 69/62)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Botos v Commis-
sion

(Case F-10/07)

(2007/C 69/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pilar Angé Serrano (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (repre-
sented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant: Patricia Botos
L. Vogel, lawyer)

(Meise, Belgium)

(represented by:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 20 March
2006 to reclassify the applicant in Grade B*6, step 8, with
effect from 1 May 2004;

— order the defendant to pay, by way of compensation for
material and non-material damage and harm to the appli-
cant's career, the sum of EUR 25 000, subject to increase
and/or decrease in the course of the proceedings;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of
the European Parliament and
successful candidate in a competition for change of category
(from Category C to Category B) before the reformed Staff Regu-
lations entered into force on 1 May 2004, has already brought
an action before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities
in
Grade B*5 (1).

the decision to reclassify her

against

— annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on
30 October 2006, by which it dismissed the complaint
brought by the applicant on 24 April 2006 against the six
following administrative decisions: (i) decision adopted on
23 January 2006 by the Office for the Administration and
Payment of Individual Entitlements; (ii) decision adopted on
23 January 2006 by the Head of
the Brussels Payment
Office of the Joint sickness insurance scheme; (iii) decision
adopted on 9 February 2006 by the Office for the Adminis-
tration and Payment of Individual Entitlements; (iv) decision
adopted on 9 February 2006 by the Head of the Brussels
Payment Office of the Joint sickness insurance scheme; (v)
decision adopted on 20 February 2006 by the Head of the
the Joint sickness insurance
Brussels Payment Office of
scheme;
the
the reimbursement of
(vi) breakdown of
medical expenses drawn up by the Brussels Payment Office
of the Joint sickness insurance scheme, dated 23 February
2006;

— in so far as necessary, annul also the six aforementioned

decisions;

In the present case, the applicant challenges the Parliament's
decision of 20 March 2006 to reclassify her in Grade B*6,

— order the defendant to pay the costs.