Case F-25/07: Action brought on 22 March 2007 — Bleser v Court of Justice
Date: 2007-03-22
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, European official, action by staff, age discrimination, equal treatment, recruitment, regulations for civil servants, wage determination

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.

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/37

In addition, the applicant submits that there has been infringe-
ment of the general principles of Community law, in particular
of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and the
principle of sound administration, the principle of transparency,
the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, the prin-
ciple of legal certainty, the principle of good faith, the prohibi-
tion on reformatio in pejus (prohibition on deterioration) and the
principle of the right to a fair hearing.

Action brought on 26 March 2007 — Sundholm v
Commission

(Case F-27/07)

(2007/C 117/59)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 21 March 2007 — Potoms and Scillia v
Parliament

(Case F-26/07)

(2007/C 117/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Asa Sundholm (Brussels, Belgium)
S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

(represented by

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of 2 June 2006 establishing the appli-
cant's Career Development Report (CDR) for the period from
1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, adopted pursuant to the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities of 20 April 2005 in Case T-86/04 Sundholm v
Commission;

— order the defendant to pay, at that stage of the proceedings,

EUR 1 by way of damages for non-material loss;

Applicants: Gerrit Potoms (Mechelen, Belgium) and Mario Scillia
(Brussels, Belgium) (both represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen,
J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— declare that Articles 5 and 12 of Annex XIII of the Staff

Regulations are unlawful;

— annul the individual decisions appointing the applicants to
an administrator post inasmuch as they determine their clas-
sification pursuant to article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff
Regulations;

— declare that

the implementing measures relating to the
awarding of merit and promotion points are unlawful inas-
much as they provide for the cancellation of merit and
promotion points on transfer from one function group to
another;

In support of his action, the applicant relies, first, on the breach
of Article 233 EC and of the obligation to state reasons inas-
much as it is not possible from the contested decision to know
how the grounds of the abovementioned judgment were taken
into account.

Moreover, the applicant asserts that the contested decision, first,
failed to take into account the aims and objectives pursued by
the new Career Development Review System, and, second,
is
vitiated by inconsistencies between the comments and marks
awarded.

Finally, the applicant relies on the breach of the rights of the
defence inasmuch as the facts on which his appraisal was based
were not disclosed to him either when they were produced or
in the context of the appraisal procedure.

— annul

the individual decisions to cancel

the merit and
promotion points accumulated by the applicants in their
former category;

— annul the individual decisions to apply a multiplier lower

than 1 to determine the applicants' remuneration;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants assert pleas in law very similar to those relied on
in Case F-31/06 (1)

(1) OJ C 131 of 3.6.2006, p. 50.

Action brought on 28 March 2007 — Quadu v Parliament

(Case F-29/07)

(2007/C 117/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sandro Quadu (Brussels, Belgium)
S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

(represented by

Defendant: European Parliament