Case F-46/07: Action brought on 18 May 2007 — Tzirani v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-07-21
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, appointment of staff, personnel administration

C 170/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.7.2007

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber)
of 14 June 2007 — De Meerleer v Commission

Action brought on 18 May 2007 — Tzirani v Commission
of the European Communities

(Case F-121/05) (1)

(Staff case — Officials — Open Competition — Non-admis-
sion to the written tests — Professional experience — Obliga-
tion to state reasons — Communication of the decision of the
selection board — Request for re-examination)

(Case F-46/07)

(2007/C 170/81)

Language of the case: French

(2007/C 170/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marie Tzirani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E.
Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Applicant: Michel De Meerleer
Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelet, lawyer)

(Ophain-Bois-Seigneur-Isaac,

Form of order sought

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and K. Herrmann, Agents)

— Annul

the decision of

the European Commission of
30 August 2006 to reappoint Mr X to the post of Director
the Directorate ‘Staff Regulations: Policy, Management
of
and Advisory Services’ of the Directorate-General ‘Personnel
and Administration’ and consequently to reject the appli-
cant's candidature for that post;

Re:

the decisions of

First, annulment of
the Selection Board in
competition EPSO/A/19/04 not to accept the applicant's candi-
dature and not to reach a decision on his request for re-exami-
nation, and second, an application for damages

— Order the defendant to pay, in compensation for non-mate-
rial and material damage and impairment to the applicant's
career, a sum of EUR 25 000, with interest at the rate of
7 % per annum since 29 November 2006, the date of the
complaint;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 60, 11.3.2006, p. 52.

after

applicant,

requesting

and obtaining,

The
in Case
T-45/04 (1), the annulment of the decision of the Commission
of 21 January 2003 to appoint Mr X to the above-mentioned
post, now challenges the lawfulness of the procedure according
to which,
the Commission reap-
following this annulment,
pointed the same person to the post in question.

In support of her action, the applicant pleads first the infringe-
ment of Article 233 EC, as a result of the Commission failing to
take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of
the Court of First Instance. According to the applicant, the
procedure should have been reopened not only at the final stage
of the interview with the Commissioner but already at the stage
of the checking of the eligibility of the candidates in the light of
the criteria established by the vacancy notice.

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/43

The applicant furthermore pleads the infringement of Articles 7,
14, 29 and 45 of
the
the Staff Regulations of Officials of
European Communities, the disregard of several general
legal
principles and the misuse of powers.

prospects, equality of treatment and the duty to give reasons,
and he also pleads a manifest error of assessment. In particular,
he asserts that the administration, after annulling, following his
the decision to award him 2 merit points,
first complaint,
should have promoted him to grade AD13.

(1) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2006, Tzirani v

Commission (not yet published in the ECR).

Finally, the applicant contends that he was discriminated against
because of his activities as a representative of the personnel,
contrary to Article 1d and 24b of the Staff Regulations, to the
sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II of the Staff Regulations
and to Article 17 of the Agreement of 12 July 1990 between
the European Parliament and the trade unions or staff associa-
tions of the personnel of the institution.

Action brought on 21 May 2007 –Behmer v Parliament

(Case F-47/07)

(2007/C 170/82)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Parliament

Parties

Action brought on 30 May 2007 — Bui Van v Commission

(Case F-51/07)

(2007/C 170/83)

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

Applicant: Philippe Bui Van (Hettange Grande, France)
sented by: S. Rodrigues and R. Albelice, lawyers)

(repre-

— Declare unlawful the decision of the Bureau of the European
Parliament relating to the ‘Policy on promotion and on
career planning’ of 6 July 2005 and the ‘Implementing
measures relating to the award of merit points and to
promotion’ of 25 July 2005;

— Annul

the decision of
promote the applicant
1 January 2005 in the 2005 promotions procedure;

the appointing authority not
to grade A*13 with effect

to
from

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Service,

the Trade Union of

The applicant, a grade AD12 official of the European Parliament
who is currently Vice-President of
the
European Public
(Union Syndicale
Luxembourg), pleads in the first place the unlawfulness of the
decisions referred to in the first indent above, which are in his
opinion general provisions for giving effect to the Staff Regula-
tions of Officials of the European Communities (‘Staff Regula-
tions’) for the purposes of Article 110 thereof.

Luxembourg

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 March

2007 not to accept the applicant's complaint;

— annul

the decision of

the Director General of

the Joint
Research Centre (JRC) of 4 October 2006 in so far as it
reclassifies the applicant in Grade AST 3, Step 2, whereas he
had initially been classified in Grade AST 4, Step 2;

— state to the Appointing Authority the consequences of the
annulment of the contested decisions and, in particular, clas-
sification in Grade AST 4, Step 2, the retroactive effect of
appointment in Grade AST 4, Step 2, from the date the post
was first taken up, the consequences in regard to different
remuneration and default interest on the payment of the
difference, as well as consequences in regard to promotion;

— award the applicant the symbolic sum of one euro by way

of compensation for his non-material loss;

The applicant also pleads infringement of Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations and of the principles governing reasonable career

— order the defendant to pay the costs.