Case F-138/06: Action brought on 18 December 2006 — Meister v OHIM
Date: 2007-04-14
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, European official, action by staff, professional career, promotion, rights of civil servants, staff assessment

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/55

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber)
of 1 March 2007 — Neirinck v Commission

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, L Lozano Palacios and
L. Escobar Guerrero, Agents)

(Case F-84/05) (1)

(Officials — Temporary staff — Admissibility — Request
within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations
— Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations —
Alleged promise to recruit)

(2007/C 82/115)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Re:

Annulment of the decision whereby the Commission of the
European Communities dismissed the applicant after the end of
his probationary period.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

Applicant: Wineke Neirinck (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

1. Dismisses the application;

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Martin and L. Lozano Palacios, agents)

2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

Re:

(1) OJ C 74 of 25.3.2006.

An application for damages seeking compensation for the loss
suffered by the applicant as a result of not having been
employed as a member of the temporary staff following an
alleged error on the part of the defendant's administration.

Operative part of the judgment

Action brought on 18 December 2006 — Meister v OHIM

The Tribunal:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders each party to bear its own costs.

(Case F-138/06)

(2007/C 82/117)

Language of the case: German

(1) OJ C 281, 12.11.2005, p. 29 (case initially registered before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number
T-334/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the Euro-
pean Union by order of 15.12.2005).

Parties

Applicant: Herbert Meister (Alicante, Spain)
Hans-Joachim Zimmermann)

(represented by:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 February
2007 — Fernández Ortiz v Commission

Form of order sought

(Case F-1/06) (1)

(Officials — Recruitment — Probationary period —
Dismissal after the end of the probationary period)

(2007/C 82/116)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fernández Ortiz (Madrid, Spain)
J. Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer)

(represented by:

— annul the implied decision of rejection by the President of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)
of 18 September 2006 taken under Article 90(2) of the
Staff Regulations;

— in the alternative, annul the implied decision of rejection by
the President of OHIM of 18 September 2006 taken under
Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations and the written deci-
sion of rejection by the President of OHIM of 20 September
2006 (dated 18 September 2006);

— in the further alternative, annul the written decision of the
President of OHIM of 20 September 2006 which was based
on Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

C 82/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.4.2007

— in the alternative, annul the communication of OHIM of 9

— Order the defendant to pay damages of EUR 1;

June 2006 entitled ‘definitive Promotion Points 2006’;

— in the alternative, annul the implied decision of rejection by

the President of OHIM of 27 November 2006;

— order OHIM to pay the applicant an appropriate amount of

up to one year's salary, but not less than EUR 45 000;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an official of OHIM in Alicante, Spain, and
complains about the reports which the defendant has to submit
about him every two years, which, he claims, are substantively
incorrect and are flawed and have not been produced on
numerous occasions. Accordingly, the applicant seeks annul-
ment of all the defendant's implied decisions taken on the basis
of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations and the amendment of
the promotion points granted erroneously by the defendant to
him in 2006.

applicant also claims

that, by unlawfully infringing
The
Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations in his regard for years, the
defendant has intentionally and immorally disregarded his rights
as an employee. He thus seeks damage for non-material harm
from the defendant on the grounds of physical harassment and
continuous infringement of his personal rights.

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decisions,
the Commission transferred the
applicant, an official in DG TREN with the status, at that time,
of half-time secondment for trade union activities, from that
DG's list to the ‘A*10 list in Annex IV’ under the 2006 promo-
tion procedure.

In support of his action, the applicant claims, in particular, that
the decisions: (i) infringe the principle of the obligation to state
reasons; (ii) are devoid of legal basis, and (iii) misapply Article 6
(3)(b) of the General provisions for implementing Article 43 of
the Staff Regulations.

Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Scozzaro v EMEA

(Case F-13/07)

(2007/C 82/119)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 26 January 2007 — Chassagne v
Commission

Parties

(Case F-8/07)

(2007/C 82/118)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
Y. Minatchy, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

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

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMEA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decision of 31 March 2006 by which the Execu-
tive Director of the EMEA refused the applicant's request for
the establishment of an Invalidity Committee and the confir-
matory decision of the following 25 October;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Annul the Commission's decisions dated 23 June 2006 and
27 October 2006 and adopt the measures arising from such
annulment for the applicant;

— Order every measure necessary to safeguard the applicant's

rights and interests;

On 17 March 2005, the applicant, a member of the EMEA's
temporary staff, fell victim to an accident at work, as a result of
which he became incapable of carrying out his work. On
14 February 2006, he was informed that his contract would not
be renewed beyond 15 October 2006. His request for the estab-
lishment of an Invalidity Committee was refused.