Case F-19/07: Action brought on 5 March 2007 — Kerelov v Commission
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition (EU)

C 95/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

a

applicant,

former member of

the Commission's
The
temporary staff, worked for
the latter continuously from
16 January 2001 to 31 December 2005 under six different
fixed-term contracts concluded in the following order: a first
contract as a member of the temporary staff, a first contract as
a member of the auxiliary staff, a second contract as a member
of the temporary staff, a second contract as a member of the
auxiliary staff, a third contract as a member of the temporary
staff and, finally, a contract as a member of the contract staff.

The administration granted her entitlement to the unemploy-
ment allowance for a maximum period of 11 months and
25 days, in so far as it held that the periods covered by the
auxiliary staff contracts should be treated as periods spent in the
service of an employer other than the Community institutions.

In support of her action, the applicant submits, first, that the
Commission committed an abuse of rights by retaining her in
its service more than five years under a variety of fixed-term
contracts and under different sets of staff regulations. Secondly,
she submits that the Commission misapplied Article 28a(4) and
the Conditions of Employment of Other
Article 96(4) of
Servants,
in so far as the period during which the applicant
worked as a member of the auxiliary staff was not taken into
account for the purposes of their provisions.

Action brought on 27 February 2007 — K v European
Parliament

(Case F-15/07)

(2007/C 95/116)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: K (represented by Dieter Struck)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— annul

the decision of

the

European Parliament of

29 November 2006 rejecting the applicant's application;

— order the defendant to pay damages for pain and suffering

and compensation;

— declare the principle of equal

to have been
infringed and deliberate and intentional harm to the appli-
cant's general rights as an individual to have taken place;

treatment

— declare the defendant to have infringed the principle of legit-
imate expectations and the obligation to give reasons for
administrative acts, as also the principle of non-discrimina-
tion;

— order the defendant to bear all the costs incurred in connec-
tion with the bringing of the action and the costs of the
action itself.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who was an official at the European Parliament
from 1 January 1978, seeks damages for pain and suffering and
compensation from the defendant by reason of conduct leading
to the infringement of the applicant's general rights as an indivi-
dual and the unusual circumstances which led to the applicant's
retirement on the ground of ill health.

Action brought on 5 March 2007 — Kerelov v Commis-
sion

(Case F-19/07)

(2007/C 95/117)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Georgi Kerelov (Pazardzhik, Bulgaria) (represented by:
Angel Kerelov, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of 6 December 2006 of the selection
board for competition EPSO/AD/43/06-CJ not to include
the applicant on the reserve list for that competition;

— declare null and void, and if necessary annul as unlawful,
the decision of 2 February 2007 of the selection board for
to exclude the applicant
competition EPSO/AD/43/06-CJ
from that competition;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant fixed damages
assessed on equitable principles at EUR 120 491,28 (two
years' salary) with statutory interest from the date on which
the application in respect of the material and non-material
damage suffered by the applicant as a result of those illegal
decisions by the competition selection board was lodged;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/59

Pleas in law and main arguments

(3) he maintains that, even if the selection board does have
such a power, it cannot exercise it after the reserve list has
been drawn up.

Concerning the first decision under appeal, the applicant puts
forward 10 pleas:

(1) the ordinary members of the selection board
were not able to make a free assessment of the
candidates in so far as the chairman and the
alternate chairman were their hierarchical super-
iors;

(2) the members of the selection board were not
familiar with the main language of the competi-
tion (Bulgarian), contrary to the requirements
resulting from well-established case-law;

(3) the length and difficulty of the texts which the
candidates had to translate were not comparable
as between the source languages chosen;

Action brought on 16 March 2007 — Lafili v Commission

(Case F-22/07)

(2007/C 95/118)

Language of the case: French

(4) the marking of the written tests was arbitrary,
selection board did not know

since
the
Bulgarian;

Parties

(5) the duration of

the oral
depending on the candidate;

test varied greatly

(6), (7) and (8) first, the criteria applied by the selection board
to assess the oral tests did not correspond to
the purpose of those tests and, secondly, several
candidates were awarded marks which were
arbitrary;

(9) candidates were denied their right to have their
submissions re-marked, in so far as the reserve
list had been definitively drawn up and put into
circulation before the expiry of
the 20-day
period laid down in the competition notice for
the purpose of the exercise of that right;

(10) the selection board assessed the applicant's tests,
in particular his oral test, improperly, justifying
the marks by incoherent, inconsistent and irrele-
vant reasons.

Concerning the second decision under appeal, the applicant
raises 3 pleas:

(1) he disputes the relevance of the facts on which the selection
board based its decision, namely the fact that he tried to
contact members of the selection board;

(2) he disputes that

the selection board has the power to
exclude a candidate from a competition for such reasons,
since, he submits, EPSO alone has that power;

Applicant:
G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Lafili

Paul

(Genk, Belgium)

(represented

by:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annulment of the decision to classify the applicant in Grade
AD 13, step 5, contained in a memorandum from DG
ADMIN of 11 May 2006 and in the pay slip of June 2006
and in subsequent pay slips;

— restoration of the applicant to Grade AD 13, step 2 with
effect from 1 May 2006, retaining a multiplication factor of
1.1172071;

— complete reinstatement of the applicant's career with retro-
spective effect from 1 May 2006 to the date of his classifica-
tion in the grade and step thus corrected (including the
evaluation of his experience in the classification thus
corrected, his entitlement to promotion and his pension
rights), including interest for late payment based on the rate
set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing
operations during the period in question, plus two percen-
tage points, on the whole of the amount corresponding to
the difference between the salary for the classification in the
classification decision and the classification to which he
should have been entitled until the date of the decision as to
his proper classification;

— an order that the defendant should pay the costs.