Case F-49/07: Action brought on 23 May 2007 — R v Commission
Date: 2007-08-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, conciliation procedure (part of ordinary legislative procedure), psychological harassment, servant (EU)

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/49

Operative part of the order

Action brought on 23 May 2007 — R v Commission

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. The parties shall bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006, p. 28.

(Case F-49/07)

(2007/C 199/96)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 23 March 2007 — Martin v Court of
Justice

Applicant: R (represented by: O. Martins, lawyer)

Parties

(Case F-28/07)

(2007/C 199/95)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Claire Martin (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented
by: D. Martin, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 4 July 2006
appointing the applicant as a lawyer-linguist probationary
official from 16 June 2006,
inasmuch as it accorded her
grade AD7;

— order that the applicant be classified in grade A*10 corre-
sponding to grade LA6 before the entry into force on 1 May
2005 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of
22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials
the European Communities and the Conditions of
of
Employment of other servants of the European Commu-
nities (1), with retroactive effect
from the date of her
appointment on 16 June 2006;

— order the full reconstruction of the applicant's career with
from the date of her appointment on

retroactive effect
16 June 2006;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on very similar pleas in law to those relied
on in Case F-37/07 (2).

(1) OJ L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 129, 9.6.2007, p. 28.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— declare the application admissible;

— in so far as is necessary, order

the
Commission's decision of 13 February 2007 dismissing the
Applicant's complaint and claim for damages
loss
suffered of 8 November 2006 and the decision of
19 December 2005;

the annulment of

for

— in so far as is necessary, declare the official's entire proba-
the measures produced in that
tionary period and all
connection void and/or order the annulment of all
the
preparatory and secondary measures or those which seek to
extend the effect of the official's end of probationary period
report of 10 January 2005 and, in particular, the so-called
intermediate report of 11 August 2004, Ms X's memo-
randum of 13 April 2005 and Appointing Authority's act of
reassignment of 3 March 2005;

— in so far as is necessary, order the partial annulment of the
end of probationary period report of 10 January 2005 for a
member of
finalised on
the temporary ‘Research’ staff,
18 May 2004, relating to the comments introduced by the
countersigning officer;

— in so far as is necessary, order the annulment of Director
General DG ADMIN's memorandum of 20 July 2005
dismissing the applicant's request for assistance, pursuant to
Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, of 11 November 2004;

— hold the European Community liable by virtue of all of the
contested decisions and measures and the Commission's
unlawful conduct towards the applicant;

— grant the applicant, in any event, damages for loss suffered

in the amount of EUR 2 500 000;

— order the Commission to pay the costs;

— in so far as is necessary, call on the Commission to take part
in conciliation proceedings under Article 7(4) of Annex I to
the Statute of the Court of Justice.

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;