Case F-16/07: Action brought on 27 February 2007 — Dragoman v Commission
Date: 2007-06-09
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition (EU), discrimination on the basis of nationality, staff regulations (EU)

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