Case F-23/07: Action brought on 19 March 2007 — M v EMEA
Date: 2007-03-19
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Medicines Agency, European official, action by staff, occupational accident, physically disabled person, regulations for civil servants

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/35

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Action brought on 23 February 2007 — Pouzol v Court of
Auditors

(Case F-17/07)

(2007/C 117/54)

Language of the case: French

In support of his action, the applicant is putting forward four
pleas alleging, respectively: (i) the infringement of a number of
provisions of the Staff Regulations of Officials and Annex VIII
thereto (in particular, of Article 11(2) and Article 26 of that
annex); (ii) breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
officials and the duty to provide assistance referred to in Article
24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials; (iii) infringement of the
principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination; (iv) infrin-
gement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expecta-
tions.

Parties

Applicant: Michel Pouzol (Chemin des Peyridisses, France) (repre-
sented by: D. Grisay, I. Andoulsi and D. Piccininno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Action brought on 19 March 2007 — M v EMEA

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Court of Auditors of 23 November
2006 and the decision of the Commission of the European
Communities of 18 May 2006;

— grant the applicant a supplementary premium in his years of
pensionable service of 6 years, 10 months and 1 day, that is,
an overall premium in the years of pensionable service of
10 years, 3 months and 24 days;

Parties

(Case F-23/07)

(2007/C 117/55)

Language of the case: French

— order the Court of Auditors to translate that premium in the
years of pensionable service into a pension supplement for
the applicant of EUR 1 232,32 per month;

— order the Court of Auditors to pay compensation for the
financial loss suffered by the applicant, assessed at the date
when this application was lodged to be EUR 17 252,48
(that is, a shortfall for the applicant of EUR 1 232,32 per
month,
from his retirement on 1 January 2006, until
1 March 2007);

— order the Court of Auditors to pay compensation for the
non-material harm suffered by the applicant over more than
13 years, the amount of damages to be established subse-
quently in an amicable settlement between the parties;

— order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.

Applicant: M (Broxbourne, United Kingdom)
S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

(represented by

Defendant: European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal
Products (EMEA)

Form of order sought

— Annul

the decision of 25 October 2006 by which the
the EMEA refused the applicant's

Executive Director of
request for referral to the Invalidity Committee;

— Order

the EMEA to pay to the applicant

the sum of
EUR 100 000 by way of damages for breach of administra-
tive duty;

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

the transfer of

The applicant, a former Court of Auditors official now retired,
disputes in particular the calculation of
the
pension rights which he had acquired in France to the Com-
munity scheme, in so far as that calculation does not take into
account pension rights acquired from the Association des
régimes de retraites complémentaires (Association of Supple-
mentary Pension Schemes)
(ARRCO) and the Association
générale des institutions de retraite des cadres (General Associa-
tion of Pension Institutions for Managerial Staff) (AGIRC).

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 17 March 2005, the applicant, a member of temporary staff
with the EMEA, suffered an accident at work, as a result of
which it is alleged that he became incapable of doing his job.
On 14 February 2006, he was informed that his contract would
for
not be renewed beyond 15 October 2006. His request
referral to the Invalidity Committee was rejected.

C 117/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.5.2007

In support of his action, the applicant relies in particular on the
breach of the first paragraph of Article 31 and the first para-
graph of Article 33 of the Conditions of Employment of Other
Servants (CEOS), as interpreted by the Civil Service Tribunal in
its judgment of 16 January 2007 in Case F-119/05 Gesner v
OHIM (not yet published in the ECR).

Action brought on 22 March 2007 — Bleser v Court of
Justice

(Case F-25/07)

(2007/C 117/57)

Language of the case: German

Action brought on 15 March 2007 — Lafleur-Tighe v
Commission

Parties

(Case F-24/07)

(2007/C 117/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Virgine Lafleur-Tighe (Makati, Philippines) (represented
by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Appointing Authority to classify
the applicant in grade 13, step 1 at the date of his recruit-
ment as a contract agent, entailed by the employment
contract signed on 22 December 2005;

— indicate to the Appointing Authority the effects of

the
annulment of the contested decision and, in particular, of
the recognition of the applicant's professional experience
from 16 November 1993, the date he obtained his bache-
lor's degree, and his reclassification in grade 14, with retro-
active effect from 22 December 2005;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, in addition to relying on the pleas in law very
similar to those which she raised in Case F-135/06 (1), claims,
in particular, that there has been a breach of the principle of
free movement in respect of degrees and professional qualifica-
tions.

(1) OJ C 236, 30.12.2006, p. 87.

Applicant: Thomas Bleser (Nittel, Germany)
P. Goergen, lawyer)

(represented by:

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the applicant's classification in the grade allo-
cated to him in the decision of 16 March 2006 regarding
his appointment;

— Annulment of Articles 2 and 13 in Appendix XIII and of
Article 32 of the Staff Regulations which entered into force
on 1 May 2004;

— Classification of

the applicant

in the grade which was
published in the notice of competition or in the grade
which corresponds to it according to the classifications of
the new Staff Regulations (and in the corresponding step
according to the provisions which were applicable before
1 May 2004);

— Award of damages in the amount corresponding to the

difference in remuneration;

— Award of damages in the amount of EUR 10 000 in respect

of the non-material damage suffered;

— Order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is essentially brought against the provisions of Arti-
cles 2 and 13 in Appendix XIII and of Article 32 of the Staff
Regulations of Officials of the European Communities which
entered into force on 1 May 2004.

submits

that his classification should have
The applicant
been carried out under the Staff Regulations which were in
force at the time when he sat the selections tests and were more
favourable to him. In support of his action, he claims that his
classification infringed the principle of equality, the principle of
non-discrimination and the prohibition of discrimination based
on age.