Case F-3/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 January 2007 — Frankin and Others v Commission (Officials — Obligation on the administration to provide assistance — Refusal — Transfer of pension rights acquired in Belgium)
Date: 2007-02-24
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, European official, action by staff, indemnification, regulations for civil servants, transfer of pension rights

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/47

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 January 2007
— Gesner v OHIM

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, agents)

(Case F-119/05) (1)

(Officials — Invalidity — Refusal of request for the establish-
ment of an Invalidity Committee)

(2007/C 42/81)

Language of the case: Spanish

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the Commission refusing the
applicant the benefit of the installation allowance and the daily
subsistence allowance and reimbursement of
travel expenses
following the establishment of her place of recruitment as Brus-
sels

Parties

Operative part of the judgment

Applicant: Charlotte Gesner (Birkerod, Denmark) (represented by:
J. Vázquez Vázquez and C. Amo Quiñones, lawyers)

The Tribunal:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero, Agent)

Re:

case — Annulment of

Staff
the decision of OHIM of
2 September 2005 refusing the applicant's request for the estab-
lishment of an Invalidity Committee to evaluate her inability to
perform the duties corresponding to a post in her function
group, and her right to claim invalidity allowance

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1. Annuls the decision of 21 April 2005 by which the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM) refused Ms Gesner's request for the establishment of an
Invalidity Committee;

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 96, 22.4.2006, p. 34.

1. Declares that the decision of

the Commission of

the European
Communities of 2 March 2005 is annulled in so far as it refuses
to grant the applicant the installation allowance provided for in
Article 5(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and the daily
subsistence allowance provided for in Article 10(1) of that Annex;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
applicant, in accordance with the rules of the Staff Regulations in
force, those allowances plus default
from the dates on
which they were payable respectively and up to the date of their
payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its main
refinancing transactions, as applicable during the relevant period,
increased by two points;

interest,

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 60, 11.3.2006, p. 54.

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of
16 January 2007 — Borbély v Commission

(Case F-126/05) (1)

(Officials — Reimbursement of expenses — Installation
allowance — Daily subsistence allowance — Travel expenses
on taking up an appointment — Place of recruitment —
Unlimited jurisdiction)

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of
16 January 2007 — Frankin and Others v Commission

(Case F-3/06) (1)

(Officials — Obligation on the administration to provide
assistance — Refusal — Transfer of pension rights acquired
in Belgium)

(2007/C 42/83)

Language of the case: French

(2007/C 42/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Jacques Frankin (Sorée, Belgium) and Others (repre-
sented by: G. Bouneou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

Applicant(s): Andrea Borbély (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
R. Stötzel, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: L. Lozano Palacios and D. Martin, Agents)

C 42/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.2.2007

Re:

First, annulment of
the Commission's decision rejecting the
requests for assistance submitted by the applicants in connection
with the transfer of their pension rights acquired in Belgium
and, secondly, an application for damages.

In her second plea, the applicant alleges breach of the principle
of the obligation to state reasons,
insofar as the assessment
carried out by the selection board gives no precise details
regarding the parameters used in correction of the tests.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 74, 25.3.2006, p. 33.

Action brought on 28 December 2006 — Collée v Parlia-
ment

(Case F-148/06)

(2007/C 42/85)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Action brought on 27 December 2006 — Dragoman v
Commission

Applicant: Laurent Collée (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)
(repre-
sented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen and E. Marchal,
lawyers)

(Case F-147/06)

(2007/C 42/84)

Defendant: European Parliament

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

Parties

Applicant: Adriana Dragoman (Brussels, Belgium)
by: S. Mihailescu, lawyer)

(represented

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— declare the illegality of paragraph I.3 of the ‘Instructions on
the procedure for the allocation of promotion points’ of the
European Parliament of 13 June 2002;

— annul

the Appointing Authority's decision of 9 January
2006 to allocate two merit points to the applicant under the
2004 promotion procedure;

Form of order sought

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— annul the decision of the selection board of Open Competi-
tion EPSO/AD/44/06-CJ for the constitution of a reserve for
future recruitment of lawyer-linguists having Romanian as
their principal
language to award a mark of 18/40 for
written test (b) to the applicant and not to admit her to the
oral test of that competition;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action, the applicant raises two pleas in law,
the first of which is divided into two branches. The first refers
to the infringement of the rules governing the work of the selec-
tion board, in that it assessed the tests by taking account rather
of the comprehension of the source languages than of the preci-
sion of the translation into Romanian. The second refers to the
infringement of
the competition notice
relating to proper establishment and publication of the names
of the members of the selection board. Such publication took
place three days before the date of the tests, whereas the compe-
tition notice provided for a minimum of 15 days.

the provisions of

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a European Parliament official in Grade AST 8,
criticises the Appointing Authority for failing to carry out an
examination of comparative merits which included all officials
of the institution who were eligible for promotion and were
classified in the same grade as the applicant. He alleges, inter
alia, breach of Articles 5 and 45 of the Staff Regulations and
infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discri-
mination. The contested decision, he argues, is also vitiated by a
manifest error of assessment and a failure to give reasons.

The applicant pleads, lastly, that paragraph I.3 of the abovemen-
tioned Instructions, which concerns the exceptional allocation
of promotion points by the Secretary-General, is illegal. In par-
ticular, the restrictions imposed by that provision on the Secre-
tary-General do not comply with Article 45 of the Staff Regula-
tions and the principle of equal treatment.