Case F-75/07: Action brought on 29 July 2007 — Brown and Volpato v Commission
Date: 2007-07-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, action by staff, administrator, professional career, promotion

C 235/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.10.2007

— order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the loss
suffered, both professional and financial (salary and asso-
ciated benefits which he would have
received from
re-employment
1 November 2006 to the date of his
resulting from the annulment of the contested decision) and
non-pecuniary (by reference to an indicative sum of
EUR 50 000);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action the applicant relies on four pleas in law,
the first of which alleges (i) infringement of Article 34 of the
Staff Regulations of Officials of
the European Communities,
(ii) breach of the duty of have regard to the welfare of officials
and (iii) breach of the principle of sound administration. In par-
ticular, his probationary period took place in conditions which
were unusual and contrary to various internal procedural rules.

The second plea in law alleges breach of the obligation to state
reasons, in that the decision to dismiss did not contain explana-
tions and relied on statements which were contradictory and
less favourable than those which appeared in the first proba-
tionary report.

in that, first,

In the third plea in law, the applicant submits that the decision
to dismiss was disproportionate and vitiated by a manifest error
of assessment,
it did not take into account the
results of certain personality tests and, secondly, a negative
evaluation as head of unit, even were it to be well founded,
should have led only to transfer to a post without such respon-
sibilities.

In his fourth plea in law, the applicant relies on breach of the
rights of the defence and of the principle of equal treatment, in
that the decision to dismiss was taken on the basis of reports
adopted without his first being heard and of which the last was
finalised in breach of the applicable procedural rules.

Action brought on 29 July 2007 — Brown and Volpato v
Commission

(Case F-75/07)

(2007/C 235/55)

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

— annul

of

the

the

decision

the
European Communities published in Administrative Notices
No 55-2006 of 17 November 2006 inasmuch as
it
promoted the applicants to grade AD9, step 1, under the
2006 promotion exercise;

Commission

of

— in so far as is necessary, annul the Commission decisions of
23 April 2007 inasmuch as they dismissed the complaints
brought by the applicants;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, Commission officials, challenge the decision to
promote them, under the 2006 promotion exercise, to grade
AD9, a new grade inserted, since 1 May 2004 between grades
AD8 (formerly A7) and AD10 (formerly A6). They submit that
they should have been promoted not to grade AD9 but to grade
AD10, following the example of what had been done in the
2004 promotion exercise in respect of officials who,
like the
applicants, were in grade A7 on 30 April 2004 and were
eligible for promotion to the next grade, A6.

The applicants rely on very similar pleas in law to the first and
third pleas in law relied on in Case F-105/06 (1).

(1) OJ C 281, 18.11.2006, p. 45.

Action brought on 17 July 2007 — Birkhoff v Commission

(Case F-76/07)

(2007/C 235/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gerhard Birkhoff (Weitnau, Germany) (represented by:
K. Hösgen, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Applicants: Colin Brown (Brussels, Belgium) and Alberto Volpato
(represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese,
(Moscow, Russia)
lawyers)

Form of order sought

— annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 18 April 2007

concerning the applicant's complaint (No R/16/07);

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— order the defendant to pay the costs.