Case F-58/07: Action brought on 16 June 2007 — Collotte v Commission
Date: 2007-08-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, administrator, anti-discriminatory measure, professional career, promotion, use of languages

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;

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/51

— order the defendant to pay, as damages for pecuniary and
non-pecuniary loss and in respect of the adverse effect on
the applicant's career, the sum of EUR 25 000, subject to
any increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Action brought on 15 June 2007 — Feral v Committee of
the Regions

(Case F-59/07)

(2007/C 199/99)

Language of the case: French

Pleas in law and main arguments

Parties

The applicant — a former member of the temporary staff who
was appointed an official in grade A*11 from 16 April 2004,
following his success in an internal competition — was consid-
ered ineligible for promotion under the 2006 promotion exer-
cise, because (i) he had not demonstrated his ability to work in
a third language, in accordance with Article 45(2) of the Staff
Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff
Regulations’) and (ii) he was not entitled to benefit from the
exception designed for officials who already had two years'
experience in their existing grade as at 1 April 2006.

In support of his action, the applicant relies on four pleas in
law, the first of which alleges breach of Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations and that
the administration committed manifest
errors of assessment. In particular, the applicant submits that,
under the transitional provisions of Article 11 of Annex XIII to
the Staff Regulations, Article 45(2) of the Staff Regulation ought
not to have been applied to the 2006 promotion exercise, espe-
cially since the rules for implementing that provision were fina-
lised only in December 2006. As it was not until August 2006
that the applicant was informed that the provision at issue
applied to his case, he maintains that he did not have access to
the training necessary to enable him to acquire the ability to
work in a third language within a reasonable period of time.

The second plea in law alleges breach of the duty to have regard
to the welfare of officials, infringement of the principles of good
administration and sound management and the existence of a
misuse of powers. The applicant submits in particular that the
administration did not have the right to apply Article 45(2) of
the Staff Regulations to him at the last minute.

The third plea in law alleges infringement of the principles of
legitimate expectations and legal certainty. The
protection of
Commission's departments,
the applicant submits, gave him
precise and consistent assurances as to the non-applicability to
his case of the new requirement imposed by Article 45(2) of the
Staff Regulations.

The fourth plea alleges infringement of the principles of equal
treatment of staff, non-discrimination and proportionality. The
applicant claims that he was placed at a disadvantage in relation
following
to other members of
success in an internal competition entitling them to establish-
ment, had already been appointed officials by 1 April 2004,
unlike the applicant.

the temporary staff, who,

Applicant: Pierre-Alexis Feral (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Defendant: Committee of the Regions of the European Union
(CoR)

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Administration Director and the
Secretary General of the CoR of 26 July 2006 to recover the
amounts paid to the applicant in application of the correc-
tion coefficient for that part of his remuneration transferred
to France between March 2003 and May 2005;

— annul the decision of 4 December 2006 of the Administra-
tion Director of CoR fixing that amount at EUR 3 600,16;

— order

the CoR to repay to the applicant

the sum of
EUR 3 600,16, plus default interest at the rate of 8 % per
annum from the date of the recovery until payment in full;

— order the CoR to pay to the applicant the amount which
should have been paid to him if the correct correction coef-
ficient had been applied to the part of his remuneration
which should have been transferred to France from June
2005, plus default interest at the rate of 8 % per annum
from the date of the recovery until payment in full;

— order the CoR to resume, from the date of the future judg-
ment, the transfer of part of the applicant's remuneration to
France, with the correction coefficient applicable to that
country;

— order the CoR to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The first plea in law alleges infringement of (i) Article 85 of the
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the
Staff Regulations’), (ii) the final indent of the second paragraph
of Article 2 of the Rules laying down the procedure for the
transfer of part of an official's emoluments (‘the Common
Rules’) and (iii) paragraphs 2 and 4 of Conclusion No 204/92 of
the Heads of Administration of 3 December 1992. According to
the applicant, the CoR could not hold that he was not entitled,
pursuant to Article 17(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations,
to have part of his remuneration transferred to his building
savings account in France on the ground that he had, through
transfers to a deposit account, brought his building savings
account once more below the maximum amount which could
be saved. In particular, he submits that (i) the Common Rules
do not require that transfers correspond to obligatory payments
and (ii) bringing the building savings account below the
maximum limit in this way is an established banking practice
which complies with French law on building savings accounts,
as referred to by the Conclusion of the Administrative Heads.