Case F-54/07: Action brought on 11 June 2007 — Joseph v Commission
Date: 2007-08-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, equal treatment, servant (EU), work contract

C 199/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.8.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

that

the Commission was guilty of
The applicant claims
unlawful acts, omissions and failures in the management of
personnel amounting to unlawful conduct towards the applicant
such as to render that institution liable. According to the appli-
cant,
the Commission misused its powers and breached
numerous essential procedural requirements, the rights of the
defence and the duty to state reasons. Moreover, the contested
acts are vitiated by manifest errors of assessment and infringe
Article
and Regulation
No 45/2001 (1), the duty to have regard to the welfare of offi-
cials, the duty to assist laid down by Article 24 of the Staff
Regulations, the principles of reasonable career prospects and
sound administration. Furthermore, the applicant was a victim
of psychological harassment.

Staff Regulations

the

26

of

(1) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with
regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institu-
tions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8,
p. 1).

The applicant claims annulment of her contract engaging her as
a member of the contract staff under Article 3a of the Condi-
tions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS), inasmuch as its
length is fixed not at three years but at 15 months, on the basis,
first, of the Commission decision related to the maximum dura-
tion for the recourse to non-permanent staff in the Commission
services and, second, Article 12 of the General Implementing
Provisions related to the procedures governing the engagement
and employment of members of the temporary staff of the
Commission (GIP).

According to the applicant, the decision of 28 April 2004,
particularly Article 3 thereof,
inasmuch as it is
contrary to the first paragraph of Article 85(1) of the CEOS. In
any event, under Article 1(2) thereof, that decision is not applic-
able to the present case, in view of the fact that the applicant is
engaged in essential tasks.

is unlawful,

the CEOS.

The applicant alleges, in addition, the unlawfulness of the GIP,
in particular Article 12 thereof, which she alleges is contrary to
Article 85(1) of
the Commission
infringed Article 12(1a) and (1b) of the GIP, which do not
allow; for the purposes of calculating the maximum period of
employment of a member of the contract staff, the cumulation
of the period of a contract under Article 3b of the CEOS with
that of a contract under Article 3a of the CEOS.

In any event,

Action brought on 11 June 2007 — Joseph v Commission

The applicant relies,
in addition, on the infringement of the
principles of non-discrimination, sound administration and the
interest of the service.

(Case F-54/07)

(2007/C 199/97)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Anne Joseph (Damascus, Syria)
N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

(represented by:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul

the contract engaging the applicant,

signed on
20 July 2006, inasmuch as its length is fixed at 15 months
commencing on 16 October 2006 and expiring on
15 January 2008;

Action brought on 16 June 2007 — Collotte v Commission

(Case F-58/07)

(2007/C 199/98)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Pascal Collotte (Overijse, Belgium)
E. Boigelot, lawyer)

(represented by:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— to the extent that it is necessary, annul the Commission's
express decision of 13 February 2007, rejecting the appli-
cant's complaint lodged, pursuant to Article 90(2) of the
Staff Regulations, on 20 October 2006;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— annul the decision taken not to include the applicant's name
on the promotions list for promotion from A*11 to A*12
for the ‘2006 promotion exercise’ and, consequently, annul
the decision not to promote him, as published in Administra-
tive Notices No 55-2006 of 17 November 2006;