Case F-31/07: Action brought on 2 April 2007 — Putterie-de-Beukelaer v Commission
Date: 2007-04-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, equal treatment, personnel administration, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

C 117/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.5.2007

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 26 April
2006 appointing the applicant as an official of the European
Communities inasmuch as it determines his classification in
grade AST 2, step 3;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

and

step

successful

temporary staff of
7,

By decision of 26 April 2006, the applicant, at the time a
the Parliament classified in
member of
an
candidate
grade C*4,
internal competition for clerical assistants (career bracket C4-5)
No C/348, published before the entry into force of Council
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004
amending the Staff Regulations of officials of
the European
Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other
servants (1), was appointed as an official and classified in grade
AST 2, step 3.

in

the applicant asserts inter alia breach of

In his action,
the
competition notice and of the principle of equality of treatment
and of non-discrimination. In particular, he contests the admin-
istration's interpretation of Article 5(4) of Annex XIII of the
Staff Regulations as meaning that the members of temporary
staff who are appointed officials only have the right to retain
their former grade and step in cases where the appointment
entails promotion to a higher grade.

(1) OJ L 124 of 27.4.2004, p. 1.

Action brought on 28 March 2007 — Noworyta v
Parliament

(Case F-30/07)

(2007/C 117/61)

Language of the case: French

Staff Regulations or any other allowance, either under
Article 56a of 56b of the Staff Regulations

— an order that the defendant pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action, the applicant pleads first, the infringe-
ment of the general principle according to which any worker
in particular in terms of
must have fair working conditions,
working time and compensation or allowances for overtime
worked or on account of special arrangements in the organisa-
tion of his or her working hours.

More specifically, she submits that, unlike Articles 56a and 56b
of the Staff Regulations, Article 3 of Annex VI to the Staff Regu-
lations does not make the granting of a fixed allowance in
respect of overtime worked in special conditions subject to the
condition that that overtime must be worked on a regular basis.
In the applicant's view, the Appointing Authority erred in law
by inserting that condition into the internal rules adopted on
compensation for overtime.

The Appointing Authority also erred in law by stating that offi-
cials recruited as of 1 May 2004 are not entitled to such an
allowance, even though that possibility was expressly referred to
in Article 1 of the internal rules.

In addition, the applicant claims that the decision to deny her
any compensation or allowance in respect of her special condi-
tions of work infringes Article 56a and 56b of the Staff Regula-
tions and the principle of equal treatment.

in the applicant's opinion, the Parliament's position is
Lastly,
inconsistent, since the Director General of
the Directorate
General for the Presidency stated that nobody on a telephone
switchboard works overtime on a regular basis, while the
Appointing Authority for its part claimed that a study was
underway in order to examine the possibilities of harmonising
working conditions in the department at issue precisely because
of the atypical hours worked, which are outside of general/
normal working hours.

Action brought on 2 April 2007 — Putterie-de-Beukelaer v
Commission

Parties

Applicant: Lidia Noworyta (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

(Case F-31/07)

(2007/C 117/62)

Defendant: European Parliament

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

Parties

— annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority of
28 April 2006 rejecting the proposal of the applicant's hier-
archical superior of 20 October 2005 to grant her the fixed
allowance in respect of overtime worked in special condi-
tions within the meaning of Article 3 of Annex VI to the

Applicant: Françoise Putterie-de-Beukelaer (XX) (represented by:
E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/39

Form of order sought

— annulment of the applicant's Career Development Report
(‘CDR’) concerning the period from 1 January 2005 to
31 December 2005, including appeal procedures and other
decisions relating to them, and specifically of section 6.5,
‘Potential’, in so far as it does not accept that the applicant
has the potential to carry out functions in category B*;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her appeal, the applicant puts forward, first, the
fact that the administration made manifest errors of assessment
in so far as it did not accept that she had the potential to carry
out functions in category B* for the purpose of the attestation
procedure provided for in Article 10(3) of Annex XIII to the
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the
Staff Regulations’). In particular, in contrast to what was stated

in the applicant's CDR, her duties as head of computer training
fall within the scope of category B*.

Secondly, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 26 of the
Staff Regulations, of the principles of respect for the rights of
the defence, transparency, the audi alteram partem rule and the
principle of sound administration of staff.
In particular, she
submits that some documents used for the purposes of her
appraisal were not communicated to her at the appropriate
time.

Thirdly, the applicant raises the infringement of Article 25(2) of
the Staff Regulations and of the duty to give reasons.

Fourthly, the applicant alleges the infringement of the principle
of equal treatment of staff and non-discrimination, in so far as
the duties carried out by a head of computer training, she
submits, are assessed in different ways for the purposes of the
attestation procedure depending on the directorates general and
the hierarchical superiors.