Case F-5/07: Action brought on 21 January 2007 — Nijs v Court of Auditors
Date: 2007-03-10
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Court of Auditors, action by staff, appointment of staff, competition (EU), promotion

C 56/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.3.2007

applicant

infringement of
relies moreover on the
The
Article 110(4) of the Staff Regulations and Article 126 of the
Conditions of Employment of other Servants. It follows from
these provisions that regular consultations must
take place
between the administrations of the institutions and agencies,
with the participation of Staff Committees, in order to ensure a
uniform application of the Staff Regulations.

It is claimed that the contested decision also infringes the prin-
ciple of good management and sound administration.

In her action, the applicant considers that the Commission is
guilty of misconduct on a number of points, namely:

— failure to demonstrate the diligence required of every admin-

istration;

— failure to comply with the commitments resulting from the
exchange agreement which it itself concluded with the Greek
Government,
thereby infringing the applicant's legitimate
expectations and the general Community interest;

— inappropriate remarks about the applicant;

— discrimination against the applicant in relation to other offi-
cials who were made available to certain national adminis-
trations for a longer period.

Action brought on 19 January 2007 — Skoulidi v Commis-
sion

(Case F-4/07)

(2007/C 56/83)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 21 January 2007 — Nijs v Court of
Auditors

(Case F-5/07)

(2007/C 56/84)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Eleni-Eleftheria Skoulidi
sented by: G. Vandersanden)

(Brussels, Belgium)

(repre-

Parties

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Belgium)
Rollinger, lawyer)

(represented by: F.

Forms of order sought

— Award the

compensation for non-pecuniary
applicant
damage suffered as a result of
the
Appointing Authority of 28 March 2006 refusing to allow
her to benefit under the exchange agreement concluded
between the Commission and the Greek Government;

the decision of

— Assess that damage on equitable principles at EUR 200 000;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, after having been made available to the Greek
Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs for eight
months, applied to be able to benefit under the Scheme of
Exchanges of officials between the Commission and the Member
States in order to complete the tasks she had performed during
that period. After having obtained the agreement of a number
of Commission departments and the Greek Government, the
applicant received a negative decision from her institution, on
the grounds that the exchange was contrary to the applicable
provisions governing the making available of officials.

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Form of order sought

— annul the Appointing Authority's decision to appoint the

applicant's superior to his current post;

— annul the result, so far as it concerns the applicant, of
competition CC/LA/1/99 and all connected and/or subse-
quent decisions;

— annul the decision of the polling office of the Court Audi-
tors to reject the applicant's challenge to the ballot of 2, 3,
and 4 May 2006;

— annul the result of the Court Auditors' Staff Committee elec-
tions of 2, 3 and 4 May 2006 and all connected and subse-
quent decisions;

— annul the decisions not to promote the applicant, and to

promote Mr X, in 2006;

— order the payment of compensation for the material and

non-material loss suffered by the applicant;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/45

Pleas in law and main arguments

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

In support of his action, the applicant argues, inter alia, that:
(i)
the Appointing Authority's decisions were vitiated by a
failure to give relevant reasons; (ii) the Secretary General of the
Court of Auditors acted unlawfully in his capacity as Appointing
Authority when he rejected the applicant's complaints, inasmuch
as he had a personal interest such as to impair his independence;
(iii) the Appointing Authority has performed its duties unlaw-
(iv) the applicant's superior performed his
fully since 1984;
in breach inter alia of Article 7 and
duties unlawfully;
Article 11a (ex Article 14) of the Staff Regulations; (v) competi-
tion CC/LA/1/99 was prejudiced by a number of illegalities, for
which there is new evidence; (vi) the 2006 Staff Committee elec-
tions are unlawful on a number of grounds; (vii) the promotion
of Mr X stems from the interest of the applicant's hierarchical
superior in obstructing the applicant's career.

Action brought on 26 January 2007 — Suvikas v Council

(Case F-6/07)

(2007/C 56/85)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Risto Suvikas (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: M.-A
Luxas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Advisory Selection Committee not
to include the applicant's name on the list of the best candi-
dates
selection concerning Council vacancy notice
B/024;

for

— annul that list and the Council decisions to recruit the candi-
dates included on it to the posts to be filled and not to
recruit the applicant;

— order the Council to pay to the applicant, in compensation
for the damage to his career, the difference for six years
between the remuneration which he would have received if
he had been recruited and that received on another basis,
and EUR 25 000 for his non-material loss;

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 14 October 2005, the Council published a vacancy notice
for eight temporary staff posts to work as Duty Officer. The
applicant, who had already performed these functions as a
national expert on secondment (SNE), applied. On 20 February
2006, he was informed that he had not been included on the
short-list following the selection procedure.

In support of his action, the applicant relies on three pleas.

In the context of the first, he asserts the infringement of para-
graph 4 of the notice and of the principles of objectivity, trans-
parency and equal treatment. In particular, whilst external candi-
dates were evaluated by the Advisory Selection Committee on
the basis of interviews and the examination of their qualifica-
tions, candidates who had already worked as duty officers as
SNEs were assessed on the basis of the opinions of their super-
iors as to the way that they had carried out their tasks. It is
claimed that the Council has not proved that that alleged irregu-
larity did not affect the results of the selection.

In the context of the second plea, the applicant relies on the
infringement of his rights of defence in that, internal candidates
having been assessed according to the procedure described
above, it is claimed that the opinions of their hierarchical super-
iors should have been communicated to them in advance, so
that they could defend themselves.

The third, based on the infringement of Article 9 and 12(1) of
the Conditions of Employment of other Servants and the princi-
ples of impartiality, objectivity and equal treatment, is made up
of three parts.

Under the first, the applicant asserts that certain members of
the Selection Committee found themselves in a situation of
conflict of interest in relation to certain candidates and that,
because of this, certain candidates were assessed outside of the
selection procedures provided for in the vacancy notice.

the second part,

Under
the
Committee assessed the qualifications of the candidates without
taking into account the level, duration and specific nature of
their training and work experience.

the applicant maintains

that

Under the third part, the applicant asserts that, even if the
assessment of internal candidates on the basis of the opinion of
their hierarchical superiors could be accepted in principle, the
procedure would still be irregular in so far as the said opinions
were not correctly taken into account when the list of successful
candidates was drawn up, particularly because of the abovemen-
tioned conflict of interest.