Case F-29/07: Action brought on 28 March 2007 — Quadu v Parliament
Date: 2007-05-26
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action by staff, competition (EU), equal treatment, professional career, regulations for civil servants

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

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