Case F-40/07: Action brought on 30 April 2007 — Baudelet-Leclaire v Commission
Date: 2007-06-09
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition (EU), equal treatment

C 129/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.6.2007

Action brought on 23 April 2007 — Cros v Court of
Justice

Action brought on 23 April 2007 — Campos Valls v
Council

(Case F-37/07)

(2007/C 129/48)

Language of the case: French

(Case F-39/07)

(2007/C 129/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

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

Applicant: Alexia Cros (Howald, Luxembourg) (represented by:
E. Reveillaud, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority (AIPN) of
19 July 2006 appointing the applicant probationary official
as a lawyer-linguist with effect from 1 September 2006 in
that she is classified at grade AD7;

— Declare and hold that, retroactively to the date of appoint-
ment of 1 September 2006, the applicant is to be classified
at grade A*10 corresponding to grade LA6 before the
entry into force of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom)
No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regu-
lations of officials of the European Communities and the
Conditions of Employment of other servants of the Euro-
pean Communities (1);

— Order the full reconstitution of her career with effect retro-

actively to 1 September 2006;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the contested decision, based on
Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, infringes:

— notice of open competition CJ/LA/24 (2), pursuant to which
the recruitment of successful candidates would be made at
grade LA7/LA6;

— the principle of equal treatment;

— the principle of legitimate expectations and the principles of
sound administration, transparency and the duty to have
regard to the welfare of officials.

(1) OJ L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 182 A, 31.7.2002, p. 1.

— annul the decision of the Appointing Authority (AIPN) to
reject the applicant's candidature for the post of head of the
Spanish Language Unit of DG A, Directorate 3 — Transla-
tion and Document Production — Language Service and the
decision appointing another candidate to that post;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant relies on a single
plea based on infringement of vacancy notice No 60/06, mani-
fest error of assessment and infringement of Article 45 of the
Staff Regulations, inasmuch as the candidate selected to fill the
position does not have, unlike the applicant,
the technical
knowledge of translation required by the vacancy notice. In par-
ticular, the argument relied on by the Council that that knowl-
edge had to be assessed in the light of the staff management
functions which the head of unit has to carry out fails to have
regard to the vacancy notice.

Action brought on 30 April 2007 — Baudelet-Leclaire v
Commission

(Case F-40/07)

(2007/C 129/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Cécile Baudelet-Leclaire (Brussels, Belgium)
sented by: M. Korving, lawyer)

(repre-

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

9.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/29

Form of order sought

— Declare that there has been discrimination between candi-
to the European institutions and external

dates ‘internal’
candidates in Competition EPSO/AST/7/05 (1);

— Declare that the defendant has produced no evidence of the
absence of discrimination between candidates ‘internal’ to
the European institutions and external candidates in that
competition;

— Annul the said competition on the ground of a breach of
the fundamental principle of equal opportunity between the
candidates;

if necessary,

— In the alternative, order the defendant to produce evidence
including,
the selection
board covered by the obligation of secrecy contained in
Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, showing that
the selection board did not favour certain candidates on
account of their professional background;

the proceedings of

basis of merit, as indicated in the competition notice and as
required by the impartial application of the principle of
equal opportunity between candidates;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By letter of 29 January 2007, the applicant was informed that
her name was not on the reserve list inasmuch as the marks she
had obtained, although above the required minimum, were not
among the 110 highest marks awarded.

In support of her application, the applicant relies, in particular,
on a breach of the principle of equal opportunity, inasmuch as
the selection board discriminated between candidates in favour
of those who already had work experience in the Community
institutions, in particular in the directorate general to which the
president of the selection board belongs.

— In the absence of evidence produced by the defendant, order
a revision of the classification of all candidates on the sole

(1) OJ 2005 C 178, p. 22.