Case F-99/07: Action brought on 28 September 2007 — Bernard v Europol
Date: 2007-09-28
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, Europol, action by staff, staff assessment, wage determination

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/55

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of
6 December 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission

Defendant: Agence européenne des médicaments (EMEA) (repre-
sented by: V. Salvatore and S. Vanlievendael, agents)

(Case F-40/06) (1)

(Staff cases — Officials — Request for information on
personal effects dispatched from the place of employment to
the place of residence — No need to adjudicate — Application
for damages manifestly unfounded)

(2008/C 22/105)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant:Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase,
Messa, lawyer)

Italy)

(represented by: V.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, agents, and A. Dal
Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

First, application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting
the applicant's request for a copy of
the consignment note
relating to the dispatch of his personal effects from Angola to
Italy and, second, an application for damages.

Operative part of the order

Re:

Application for annulment of
the EMEA of
25 October 2006 rejecting the application brought by the appli-
cant for an Invalidity Committee to be convened — Application
for damages.

the decision of

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

2. Each party shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 117, 26.5.2007, p. 35.

Action brought on 28 September 2007 — Bernard v
Europol

(Case F-99/07)

(2008/C 22/107)

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the claims for annulment;

Language of the case: Dutch

2. The claims for compensation are rejected as manifestly unfounded;

3. Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and all the costs incurred by

Parties

the Commission of the European Communities.

(1) OJ C 143, 17.6.2006, p. 37.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of
19 October 2007 — M v Agence européenne des médica-
ments (EMEA)

(Case F-23/07) (1)

(Staff cases — Officials — Invalidity — Invalidity Committee
— Refusal to convene — Manifest inadmissibility)

Applicant: Marjorie Bernard (Woerden, Netherlands) (represented
by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 26 June 2007, notified on 28 June
2007, concerning the complaint, and the assessments of
5 February 2007 and 25 July 2007;

— Order Europol:

— to grant the applicant an increase in monthly salary with
effect from 1 September 2006, together with interest;

— to pay damages in the amount of EUR 7 500 net;

(2008/C 22/106)

Language of the case: French

— Order Europol to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Parties

Applicant: M (London, United Kingdom)
Orlandi, A. Cohen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

(represented by: S.

The present proceedings relate to the assessment of the appli-
cant's work during the period from 1 September 2005 to
31 August 2006. The applicant's work was assessed as a ‘2’,
which corresponds to the criterion ‘does not entirely meet the
standard required’.

C 22/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.1.2008

The applicant made a complaint concerning the assessment and
the lack of any decision regarding the award of an increase in
monthly salary and, in that context, she relied on the assessment
guidelines in force in Europol. The applicant submits that the
assessment is manifestly incorrect.

The applicant submits in particular that her complaints were
declared unfounded by a decision of 26 June 2007 and alleges
breach of the principle of the duty to state reasons since no
reasons were stated for that decision. Nevertheless, the Director
of Europol points out that the assessment was withdrawn and
that a fresh assessment was to be made. That assessment took
place on 25 July 2007.

The present action therefore relates to the decision made on the
complaint and the assessment of 25 July 2007.

Action brought on 15 October 2007 — Bart Nijs v
European Court of Auditors

(Case F-108/07)

(2008/C 22/108)

Language of the case: French

(iv)

the

the power

repeatedly not published;

their dates were
staff
committee elections of 2004 and 2006 were unlawful for a
number of reasons; (v) there were many instances of misuse of
to
the promotion procedure, of usurpation of
appoint allowed to a head of unit, and of personal
interests
likely to compromise the independence of
the appointing
authority in nearly all
its decisions; (vi) the ‘decisions of the
appointing authority’ emanated from the personal interests of
all the applicant's hierarchical superiors, from the concealment
of the call to a colleague to exercise superior functions on an
interim basis, and from failure to refer the matter to the Anti-
Fraud Office; (vii) the appointing authority based the contested
decisions on the same series of manifest errors as the intial deci-
sions, which they confirm, relying on a judgment that does not
have the force of res judicata and without refuting any of the
applicant's arguments; (viii) the committees also involved in the
assessment and promotion procedure were not informed of the
compromised independence of the applicant's hierarchical super-
iors.

Action brought on 23 October 2007 — Behmer v
Parliament

(Case F-124/07)

(2008/C 22/109)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by:
F. Rollinger, lawyer)

Parties

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the European Court of Auditors to
renew the mandate of the Secretary General of the Court of
Auditors for a further period of six years from 1 July 2007

— in the alternative, annul the two measures allegedly consti-
tuting ‘decisions of the appointing authority’ of 8 December
2006 implementing the judgment of
the Court of First
Instance of 3 October 2006 in Case T-171/05, and of
12 July 2007,
complaint of
rejecting the applicant's
12 March 2007

Applicant: Joachim Behmer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Annul

the decision of

the
European Parliament awarding two promotion points to the
applicant for 2005;

the appointing authority of

— Annul

the decision of

the appointing authority not

to

promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in 2006;

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

In support of his action, the applicant relies in particular on the
following facts: (i) the Secretary General of the Court of Audi-
tors acted unlawfully; rather than referring the matter to the
Anti-Fraud Office, he expressly refused to take measures or to
examine the question when he had been informed, with docu-
mentary evidence, of the existence of a fraud to the detriment
of the invalidity pensions system; (ii) an official exercised his
powers in an unlawful manner; (iii) promotion decisions and

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official at the European Parliament in grade
AD 12, alleges above all the unlawfulness of the decisions of
the appointing authority, firstly, to award the applicant two
promotion points for 2005 and, secondly, not to promote him
to grade AD 13 in 2006.