Case F-33/07: Action brought on 10 April 2007 — Alberto Toronjo Benitez v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-06-09
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, professional career, promotion, rights of civil servants, servant (EU), staff assessment

C 129/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.6.2007

Action brought on 27 February 2007 — Dragoman v
Commission

In her third plea, the applicant alleges infringement of the duty
to give reasons.

(Case F-16/07)

(2007/C 129/44)

Language of the case: Romanian

Action brought on 10 April 2007 — Alberto Toronjo
Benitez v Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Applicant: Adriana Dragoman (Brussels, Belgium)
by: G. Dinulescu, lawyer)

(represented

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-33/07)

(2007/C 129/45)

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

Parties

— Annul the verbal decision of the selection board of Competi-
tion EPSO/AD/34/06 of 28 November 2006 by which that
selection board awarded the applicant an ‘eliminating mark’
for the first oral interpretation test, which mark, pursuant to
the notice of that competition, did not permit the applicant
to take the following oral
interpretation tests or the final
oral test;

— Annul the written decision confirming the abovementioned
decision, which was added to the applicant's EPSO file on
12 December 2006;

— Run the competition again especially for the applicant, in
strict compliance with all the provisions of Community law
and the provisions of the notice of competition;

— Find and declare that Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff

Regulations of Officials is unlawful;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her claim, the applicant raises three pleas in law,
the first of which alleges infringement of
the principle of
equality and non-discrimination. In the first part of that plea,
the applicant alleges that she was the subject of discrimination
by reason of nationality, contrary inter alia to Article 27 of the
Staff Regulations. After having supplied evidence of her Belgian
nationality, she was requested to prove her Romanian nation-
ality. In the second part, she argues that the selection board
discriminated against candidates who, like her, did not already
work for the institutions as temporary or contractual agents.

In her second plea, the applicant alleges infringement of the
provisions of the notice of competition and of the principle of
sound administration. Firstly, during her test, she was asked to
speak about her professional experience even though no profes-
sional experience was required of candidates who, like her, held
a university degree in conference interpreting. Secondly,
the
selection board established and applied pass quotas based on
the linguistic combinations chosen by the candidates without
such a possibility being provided for in the notice of competi-
tion.

Applicant: Alberto Toronjo Benitez (Brussels, Belgium)
(repre-
sented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen and E. Marchal,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Declare the unlawfulness of Article 2 of the Commission's
decision on the promotion procedure for officials whose
remuneration falls under the ‘Research’ credits of the general
budget (both in the version of 16 June 2004 and that of
20 July 2005) (‘the first contested decision’);

— Annul the Commission's decision to remove the 44.5 points
from the applicant's balance which he had accumulated as a
temporary agent (‘the second contested decision’);

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who took up his post at the Commission on
16 January 2000 as a temporary agent in the ‘Research’ Directo-
rate-General (‘DG’), was appointed as an official in the same DG
with effect from 16 April 2004. On 1 May 2005 he was trans-
ferred to DG ‘Relex’. By letter of 16 June 2006, he was informed
that the points which he had acquired as a temporary agent had
been annulled, by application of the first contested decision,
since he had moved to a post falling under the ‘Operational’
part of
the general budget before two years had expired
following his recruitment as a probationary official to a post
falling under the ‘Research’ part of that budget.

In support of his action, the applicant relies first on infringe-
ment of the principles of legal certainty, administrative legality
and protection of acquired rights, since the withdrawal by the
Appointing Authority (AIPN) of an unlawful decision consti-
tuting subjective rights should have taken place within a reason-
able time, which is not
the second
contested decision.

the case in respect of

9.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/27

Furthermore, the applicant submits that Article 2 of the second
contested decision is discriminatory against officials whose
remuneration falls under the ‘Research’ credits and who apply
for a transfer before two years has expired following their
recruitment, since those officials lose their points following the
transfer whereas officials who are transferred automatically or
who occupy posts considered sensitive retain their points.

Action brought on 13 April 2007 — Skareby v
Commission

(Case F-34/07)

(2007/C 129/46)

Language of the case: French

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her claim, the applicant first alleges failure to
comply with the rules governing establishment of the CDR. The
administration infringed the rules of procedure established by
the general implementing provisions of Article 43 of the Staff
Regulations and committed manifest errors of assessment.

The applicant then alleges infringement of the rights of the
defence, the principle of sound administration and the duty to
have regard for the welfare of officials.

Finally, she alleges that the administration misused its powers
and misused the procedure.

Action brought on 19 April 2007 — Lebedef v
Commission

(Case F-36/07)

(2007/C 129/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Carina Skareby (Bichkek, Kirghizistan)
by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

(represented

Parties

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (repre-
sented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Form of order sought

— Annul the applicant's Career Development Report (CDR) for

Form of order sought

2005;

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— Annul, in so far as necessary, the decision of the Appointing

Authority (AIPN) rejecting the applicant's appeal;

— Indicate to the AIPN the effects of annulment of

the
contested decisions and in particular the adoption of a new
CDR for 2005, this time in compliance with the statutory
rules;

— Order the AIPN to pay to the applicant: i) a sum fixed ex
aequo et bono at EUR 15 000 in respect of compensation for
her non-material damage; ii) a sum fixed ex aequo et bono at
EUR 15 000 in respect of compensation for the professional
injury suffered by her; iii) a sum to be fixed in equity by the
Tribunal
late payment
interest to run on each of those sums at the legal rate with
effect from the date on which they become payable;

in respect of her

financial

loss,

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

— annul

the applicant's career development report
for the
period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005, in par-
ticular that part of the report drawn up by Eurostat for that
period;

— 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 in law alleging an infringement of the general measures for
the application of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, specifi-
cally, the measures concerning union and statutory staff repre-
sentatives, breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and
of the rule ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’.