Case F-22/07: Action brought on 16 March 2007 — Lafili v Commission
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, promotion, regulations for civil servants, seniority

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.

C 95/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 March 2007 —
Simon v Court of Justice and Commission

applicant,

a Commission official, was

The
classified in
Grade A4, step 7, until the day before the entry into force of
the new Staff Regulations. On 1 May 2004, that classification
was converted to Grade A*12, step 7, with a multiplication
factor of 0.9442490 (in accordance with Article 2(2) of
Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations). On 1 July 2004, the appli-
cant moved to Grade A*12, step 8, with the same multiplication
factor. On 22 July 2005, the applicant was promoted, with
retrospective effect from 1 May 2004, to Grade A*13, step 1,
with a multiplication factor of 1.1172071 (in accordance with
Article 7(6) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations). With effect
from 1 May 2006, he was classified in Grade AD 13, step 5,
with a multiplication factor of 1, pursuant to a decision of DG
ADMIN of 11 May 2006.

(Case F-58/06) (1)

(2007/C 95/119)

Language of the case: Hungarian

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case
be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 190, 12.8.2006, p. 35.

In his action, the applicant claims that such a classification (i)
breaches, inter alia, Articles 44 and 46 of the Staff Regulations
and Article 7 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;
is
vitiated by a lack of competence; (iii) breaches the principle of
protection of legitimate expectations. In particular, according to
the applicant, the Commission's interpretation of Article 7(7) of
Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is incorrect in that it takes
the view that, where a multiplication factor is higher than 1, the
excess should be converted to seniority in step.

(ii)

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 March 2007 —
Simon v Court of Justice and Commission

(Case F-100/06) (1)

(2007/C 95/120)

Language of the case: Hungarian

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case
be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006, p. 65.