Case F-146/06: Action brought on 11 December 2006 — Speiser v Parliament
Date: 2007-03-10
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, action by staff, allowances and expenses, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)

C 56/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.3.2007

Re:

suspend the decisions of

First,
selection board of
23 November and 7 December 2006 refusing to admit the
applicant to Open Competition EPSO/AD/26/05 and secondly,
as a provisional measure, order the marking of his written test
in that competition.

the

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.

Action brought on 22 December 2006 — Pascual García v
Commission

(Case F-145/06)

(2007/C 56/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: César Pascual García (Madrid, Spain) (represented by:
B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 7 April 2006 of the Director General
of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the Commission of the
applicant on
European Communities, notified to the
17 April 2006, in so far as it did not take his application
into consideration for the post relating to notice of vacancy
COM/2005/2969 — B/3/B*11 — JRC.I.04 — IHCP —
Ispra, and added a comment in the reserve list of competi-
tion EPSO/B/23/04 (1), informing the Commission's depart-
ments that the applicant does not meet the conditions of
eligibility for that competition;

— If necessary, annul

the Commission's
the decision of
Appointing Authority of 22 September 2006, notified to
the applicant on 13 November 2006, rejecting his claim
No R/400/06;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Director General of the JRC considered that he did not meet the
required conditions of eligibility for that competition.

In his action, the applicant argues that the contested decision:
(i) is vitiated by an abuse of procedure in that it unduly modi-
fied the assessment of his qualifications and experience done by
the selection board, without that board having committed a
manifest error of assessment; (ii) infringes the legal framework
imposed by the notice of competition; (iii) is vitiated by a mani-
fest error of assessment and a serious failure to state reasons
due to its illogical nature;
infringes the principle of the
protection of legitimate expectations.

(iv)

In the alternative, according to the applicant, the contested deci-
sion infringes the principle of equal treatment. Since the provi-
sions of the notice of competition infringe that principle,
it
must be declared unlawful for the purposes of Article 241 EC.

(1) Notice of open competition EPSO/B/23/04 to constitute a reserve
pool of laboratory technicians (B 5/B 4) in technical and research
fields (OJ C 81A of 31 March 2004, p. 17).

Action brought on 11 December 2006 — Speiser v Parlia-
ment

(Case F-146/06)

(2007/C 56/80)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Michael Alexander Speiser (Neu-Isenburg, Germany)
(represented by: F. Theumer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Annul

the defendant's decision of 11 September 2006
(No 115521) dismissing the applicant's complaint of 31
March 2006 pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regula-
tions in respect of payment of the expatriation allowance;

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant the expatriation
allowance pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the
Staff Regulations with retroactive effect from 3 October
2005;

The applicant, a successful candidate in general competition
recruited by the JRC because the
EPSO/B/23/04, was not

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/43

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who started working as a 'temporary agent' for
the EPP-ED Group on 3 October 2005, is challenging the rejec-
tion of his application for payment of the expatriation allow-
ance. He claims that he submitted all the documents and infor-
mation necessary for claiming the allowance and that he satisfies
all the criteria.

Action brought on 12 January 2007 — Matos Martins v
Commission

(Case F-2/07)

(2007/C 56/81)

Language of the case: French

group, or at the very least should have been laid down by a
random choice from a set of questions of the same level.

The second plea is based on breach of the duty of transparency,
of the duty to provide reasons for decisions adversely affecting
individuals, of the rule of public access to Commission docu-
ments and of the principle of the protection of legitimate expec-
tations. The applicant asserts that he was not sent the questions
which he had been asked and that the reasons put forward by
EPSO to justify that denial of information were clearly factually
inaccurate and legally inadmissible. In particular, it is claimed,
first, that Annex III to the Staff Regulations providing that the
work of the section board is secret is not applicable in the
present case and, secondly, that the communication of the ques-
tions became essential in the light of the doubts and reserva-
tions
that EPSO itself and the Joint Selection Committee
expressed as to the validity of the tests.

Action brought on 18 January 2007 — Moschonaki v
EUROFOUND

Parties

Applicant: José Carlos Matos Martins (Brussels, Belgium) (repre-
sented by: M.-A Lucas, lawyer)

(Case F-3/07)

(2007/C 56/82)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

Parties

— annul the decision of 27 February 2006 of the European
laying down the appli-
Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)
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;

Applicant: Chrysanthe Moschonaki (Ballybrack, Ireland) (repre-
sented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N Louis and E. Marchal,
lawyers)

Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living
and Working Conditions (EUROFOUND)

— annul the consequences of the selection procedure;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant raises two pleas.

Under the first part of his first plea, the applicant asserts that
the level of difficulty and the cut-off mark to be attained in the
pre-selection tests, and in particular the level of difficulty of the
numerical test for Function Group IV candidates was set on the
basis of the number of candidates, so as to result in a predeter-
mined number of successful candidates, whilst it is claimed that
they should have been laid down solely in the light of the
demands of the duties of the posts to be filled.

Under the second part of that plea, the applicant asserts that the
content of the pre-selection tests was laid down for each func-
tion group on the basis of a random choice from a set of ques-
tions of different levels whilst the content of the tests should
have been the same for all the candidates of the same function

— annul the decision of the director of EUROFOUND not to
authorise the applicant's mission to take part in the meeting
of 30 and 31 March 2006 of the Assembly of Agency Staff
Committees,

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action, the applicant asserts principally that in
refusing her mission application to attend the meeting of
30 and 31 March 2006 of
the Assembly of Agency Staff
Committees, EUROFOUND infringed Articles 24b and 9(3) of
the Staff Regulations and the sixth paragraph of Article 1 of
Annex 2 to the Staff Regulations, which lay down freedom of
association and trade union representation, the consultation and
management role of the Staff Committee and the prohibition
on any disadvantages accruing to a member of staff by virtue of
carrying out the functions of members of the Staff Committee.