Case F-98/07: Action brought on 3 October 2007 — Petrilli v Commission
Date: 2007-10-03
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, labour law, regulations for civil servants, servant (EU), termination of a contract, work contract

C 297/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.12.2007

Action brought on 3 October 2007 — Petrilli v
Commission

(Case F-98/07)

(2007/C 297/96)

— order the Commission to pay the applicant, as compensa-
tion for the non-material loss caused by the decision not to
renew her contract, a sum the amount of which is to be
determined by the Tribunal, provisionally set at EUR 1,
subject to an express reservation that that sum may be
increased in the course of proceedings;

Language of the case: French

the costs.

— order the Commission of the European Communities to pay

Parties

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant: Nicole Petrilli (Sint Stevens Woluwe, Belgium) (repre-
sented by: J.L. Lodomez, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— declare the present action for annulment admissible and well

founded;

— annul the decision of 20 July 2007 by which the appointing
authority dismissed the applicant's request, brought on the
basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of
the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’), for the
renewal of her contract in DG ‘Research’ of the Commis-
sion;

— annul any decision that the Commission may make on the
complaint, brought by the applicant
to the
present action and to an action to stay the appointing
authority's decision of 20 July 2007;

in parallel

— declare the present action for damages admissible and well

founded;

— order the Commission to permit the applicant to return to
her post as a member of the contract staff in Unit ‘T2’ of
DG ‘Research’ for a period of 18 months; couple with that
order a periodic penalty payment of EUR 1 000 for each
day of delay;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant, by way of
damages for the material loss caused by the loss of remu-
neration as a consequence of
to renew her
contract, a sum corresponding to the remuneration which
she would have received if she had been able to continue
her contract as a member of the contract staff until the
expiration of the three years;

the refusal

— order the Commission to make good the additional

loss
suffered by the applicant as a result of the loss of a chance
of obtaining a contract for an indefinite period in the future
Research Executive Agency (REA),
following the lack of
renewal of the abovementioned contract and the denial to
her of
the possibility of completing her mission in the
Commission and of deepening thereby her experience by
continuing to carry out that mission;

that

submits

(CEOS). The applicant

taken on the basis of

In support of her action, the applicant relies on four pleas in
law, the first of which alleges breach of the principle of legality
the Conditions of Employment of Other
and Article 88 of
Servants
the decision
refusing to renew her contract as a member of the contract
staff,
the Commission decision of
28 April 2004 on the maximum duration for the recourse to
non-permanent staff in the Commission services, precludes the
operation of Article 88 of the CEOS which would allow her
contract to be renewed for a new period of 18 months. The
decision of 28 April 2004 is illegal inasmuch as it introduces
restrictions on the rights laid down by the provisions of the
Staff Regulations.

The second plea in law alleges breach of the principle of sound
administration, of the duty to have regard to the interests of
members of staff and to the interests of the service. The appli-
cant submits that the contested decision does not take into
account her personal situation, the interests of the service or
those of the future agency which is to be established.

The third plea in law alleges a failure to state sufficient reasons
and an infringement of Article 3b of the CEOS. The applicant
submits in particular that the automatic refusal to renew her
contract, because she had reached the ceiling of six years laid
down in the decision of 28 April 2004, is counter to the philo-
sophy of Article 3c of the CEOS, which is founded on the wish
to employ persons under a contract for a fixed period in order
to fulfil tasks in specialised fields for the time necessary for the
accomplishment of a specific task.

The fourth plea in law alleges that the decision of 28 April
2004 infringes Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999
(OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43), the general principles of European
labour law, the social rights of workers and, in particular, the
principle of stability in employment and the principle of non-
discrimination. As regards the last of
the applicant
submits that the ceiling of six years applies only to members of
the contract staff falling under Article 3b of the CEOS, whilst
those falling under Article 3a of the CEOS have the possibility
of having an indefinite contract.

those,