Case F-38/07: Action brought on 20 April 2007 — Francesco Caleprico v Commission
Date: 2007-06-23
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), appointment of staff, equal treatment

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/45

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Action brought on 16 April 2007 — Klug v European
Medicines Agency

Action brought on 20 April 2007 — Francesco Caleprico v
Commission

(Case F-35/07)

(2007/C 140/72)

Language of the case: German

(Case F-38/07)

(2007/C 140/73)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bettina Klug (London, United Kingdom) (represented
by: G. Grupp, lawyer)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Applicant: Francesco Caleprico (Brussels, Belgium) (represented
by: V. Guagliulmi, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Order the defendant to extend the applicant's contract of

employment of 7 February 2002,

— order the defendant to pay the applicant damages for pain

and suffering in the amount of EUR 200 000,

Form of order sought

— declare Articles 12 and 13 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regula-
tions inapplicable, as provided for in Article 241 EC, in that
they are unlawful;

— order the defendant to annul the applicant's staff report
from 31 December 2004 to 31 December 2006 and to
decide anew in the light of the findings of the Tribunal.

— annul the decision by which the appointing authority impli-
citly rejected the complaint submitted by the applicant
against the decision of 12 June 2006;

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on Article 12(a) Title II of the Staff Regula-
tions of Officials (harassment). It alleges incorrect exercise of
discretion regarding the applicant's staff report, infringement of
the Agency's procedural rules on drawing up a staff report, and,
as a result, that the Agency unlawfully failed to extend the appli-
cant's contract of employment.

The applicant asserts in support of her action that owing to the
harassment and lack of objectivity in the assessment of her
work, her work deteriorated and thus her five-year contract was
not extended.

— annul in part the decision of the Commission of 12 June
2006, in so far as the appointing authority established the
applicant in grade AD6/2 rather than AD8/3;

— order the Commission to replace the contested part of the
decision of 12 June 2006 with a part establishing the appli-
cant in grade AD8/3 with retroactive effect (from 1 July
2006);

— order the Commission to pay the applicant all the amounts
which he has not received on account of the unlawfulness
of the contested decisions, plus interest due and becoming
due;

— order the Commission to compensate all and any other
damage suffered by the applicant as the Court of First
Instance may deem fit in the present case;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

C 140/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.6.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 2 May 2007 — Fernandez García and
García Rato v Court of Justice

The applicant, placed on the reserve list of competition EUR/A/
155/2000 (1) for the establishment of a list of suitable candi-
dates for grades A7/A6, was employed after 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 of the Euro-
pean Communities (2) came into force, and established in grade
AD6/2.

In support of his application, the applicant pleads two grounds.

Parties

(Case F-41/07)

(2007/C 140/74)

Language of the case: French

In connection with the first plea, he submits that the decision of
12 June 2006 is vitiated by a conflict between, on the one
hand, the reference in the preamble to Article 31 of the Staff
Regulations, according to which candidates are to be appointed
to the grade of the function group set out in the notice of the
competition, and, on the other hand, the operative part of that
decision which establishes him in grade AD6/2.

In connection with the second plea, he claims that, in any event,
the decision at issue is unlawful because it is founded on an
implicit legal basis (Articles 12 and 13 of Annex XIII to the
Staff Regulations) which is unlawful under the following heads:

— breach of the principles of legal certainty and the protection

of legitimate expectations;

— breach of
treatment;

the principle of non-discrimination and equal

— breach of the principle of reasonableness, considering that
the application of the new body of rules depends on a
circumstance which is absolutely fortuitous, such as that of
being recruited before or after a particular date, without any
other reason justifying such a rule;

— breach of the principle of sound administration;

— in the alternative, infringement of the obligation to state the
reasons on which Community measures are based laid down
in Article 251 EC.

(1) OJ C 147 A of 25.5.2000, p. 10.
(2) OJ L 124 of 27.4.2004, p. 1.

Applicants: Brigida Fernandez García (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)
and Carolina García Rato (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)(repre-
sented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal,
lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decisions to appoint the applicants as officials of
the European Communities in so far as they fix their grade
of recruitment under Article 13 of Annex XIII to the Staff
Regulations;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, successful candidates in competition CJ/LA/
25 (1), the notice of which was published before 1 May 2004,
were recruited after 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 of the Euro-
pean Communities (2).

In their action, the applicants claim, first, that the contested
decisions misapplied the legal
framework established by the
notice of competition. Under Article 13 of Annex XIII to the
Staff Regulations, they were recruited in a grade lower than that
indicated in the notice of competition.

The applicants also plead that the contested decisions infringe
Articles 5, 29 and 31 of the Staff Regulations, as well as the
principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. The grade
and step of successful candidates in the same competition or in
competitions at
the same level was fixed at different levels
depending on whether they were recruited before or after the
entry into force of Regulation No 723/2004.