Case F-55/07: Action brought on 30 May 2007 — Tiralongo v Commission
Date: 2007-08-04
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, action by staff, equal treatment, servant (EU), work contract

4.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/43

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of
19 June 2007 — Davis and Others v Council

Form of order sought

(Case F-54/06) (1)

(Staff cases — Officials — Pensions — Weightings — Retire-
ment after the entry into force of the version of the Staff
Regulations applicable from 1 May 2004 — Application of
weightings calculated on the basis of the average cost of
living in the country of residence of retired officials — Transi-
tional scheme — Abolition of weightings for pension rights
acquired after the entry into force of the version of the Staff
Regulations applicable from 1 May 2004)

(2007/C 183/83)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Davis and Others (Bolton, United Kingdom) and
three Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis
and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of
M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, acting as Agents)

the European Union (represented by:

Re:

Annulment of the Council's decisions determining the appli-
cants' pension entitlements, on the grounds that the portion of
their pension entitlement acquired after 30 April 2004 is not
multiplied by a weighting, and that the weighting by which the
portion of their pension entitlement acquired before 30 April
2004 is multiplied differs from that by which the remuneration
of officials in active employment in the United Kingdom or
Denmark is multiplied.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 154, 1.7.2006, p. 28.

— Annul the decision of 8 February 2007 to reduce the appli-

cant's survivor's pension by 50 %;

— Order the defendant, with retrospective effect from 1 April
2006, and monthly henceforth, to pay the applicant the
further 50 % of the survivor's pension of his deceased wife
Gisela Neumann.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament cut the applicant's survivor's pension
as the widower of Gisela Neumann with reference to non-recog-
the Belgian decree of divorce which the deceased
nition of
obtained against her first husband in 1995.

The claim is brought against the non-recognition of that decree
against Council Regulation No 2201/2203/EC of
and
24 November 2003. The applicant argues that he is the sole
‘surviving spouse’, since the marriage between himself and the
deceased came into existence in a legally effective way (Art. 18
Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations).

Action brought on 30 May 2007 — Tiralongo v
Commission

(Case F-55/07)

(2007/C 183/85)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Giuseppe Tiralongo (Ladispoli, Italy) (represented by:
F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and S. Frazzani, lawyers)

Action brought on 16 May 2007 — Wolfgang A. Mandt v
European Parliament

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-45/07)

(2007/C 183/84)

Language of the case: German

Form of order sought

— declare the present action admissible;

Parties

Applicant: Wolfgang A. Mandt (Kreuztal, Germany) (represented
by: B. Kolb, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

— order the Commission to provide the information and docu-
ments relating to the initial engagement of Ms X and to the
successive extensions of her contract within the European
Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), and order Ms X to testify as a
witness;

C 183/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.8.2007

— adopt all measures of organisation of procedure and
measures of inquiry necessary for the purpose of assessing
the infringement by the Commission of the principles of
equal treatment and non-discrimination;

— order the defendant to pay, by way of damages for non-
material or material damage and the prejudice to the
applicant's career, the amount of EUR 25 000, subject to
increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings;

— order the Commission to pay 460 000 EUR, or any other
amount which the Tribunal may consider to be fair and
equitable, by way of compensation for the material damage
caused to the applicant;

— order the Commission to pay 100 000 EUR, or any other
amount which the Tribunal may consider to be fair and
equitable, by way of compensation for the non-material
damage caused to the applicant;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a member of the temporary staff of OLAF up to
30 April 2005, seeks to recover compensation in respect of the
damage which he claims to have suffered as a result of a series
of unlawful acts allegedly committed by the Commission in
connection with the extension of his contract. Those unlawful
acts ostensibly concern in particular: (i) breach of the applicable
legal rules and of the case-law relating to employment in the
public service; (ii) infringement of the principle of the protection
of legitimate expectations; (iii) infringement of the principles of
equal treatment and non-discrimination.

Action brought on 11 June 2007 — Gerochristos v
Parliament

(Case F-56/07)

(2007/C 183/86)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ioannis Gerochristos (Brussels, Belgium) (represented
by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— annul the Parliament's decision of 26 September 2006 to
appoint the applicant as a probationary official in the func-
tion group for administrators with the classification of grade
AD 6, step 3;

— annul

the Parliament's subsequent decision to withhold
EUR 994.95 from the applicant's basic salary and order it to
repay that amount to him as soon as practicable after the
decision to annul;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

a

in

candidate

applicant,

Open
successful
The
Competition EPSO A/18/04 (1), notice of which was published
before the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom)
No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regula-
tions of Officials of the European Communities and the Condi-
the European
tions of Employment of Other Servants of
Communities (2), was a member of the temporary staff in grade
AST 8 at the time of his recruitment as an official
in grade
AD 6.

In support of his action, the applicant relies, first, on breach of
the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 25(2) of the Staff
Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff
Regulations’),
in that the administration never provided him
with an explanation for his classification in grade AD 6 or for
the decision to withhold the amount of EUR 994.95 from his
basic salary.

Second, the applicant: (i) claims that there has been a breach of
Article 31 of the Staff Regulations, of Articles 2 and 8 of
Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations and of the provisions of the
competition notice and (ii) raises a plea of illegality in respect of
Article 13(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

Third, the applicant maintains that the administration failed to
apply the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination,
particularly in that he was penalised in comparison with
members of the temporary staff and officials who benefit from
a more favourable classification under Article 5(2) and (4) of
Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations or to certain provisions
adopted by the Parliament's bureau on 13 February 2006.

Fourth, the applicant replies on breach of the principles of legal
certainty and legitimate expectations, particularly as the compe-
tition notice was for the drawing up of a reserve list for the
recruitment of administrators in grade A7/A6.

Fifth, the applicant claims breach of the principle of sound
administration and the duty to have regard for the interests of
officials.

Finally, the applicant submits that,
in withholding the above-
mentioned amount from his basic salary, the administration has
breached Article 85 of the Staff Regulations.

(1) OJ C 96 A, 21.4.2004, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1.