Case F-76/07: Action brought on 17 July 2007 — Birkhoff v Commission
Date: 2007-10-06
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, facilities for people with disabilities, health insurance, retired person

C 235/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.10.2007

— order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the loss
suffered, both professional and financial (salary and asso-
ciated benefits which he would have
received from
re-employment
1 November 2006 to the date of his
resulting from the annulment of the contested decision) and
non-pecuniary (by reference to an indicative sum of
EUR 50 000);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action the applicant relies on four pleas in law,
the first of which alleges (i) infringement of Article 34 of the
Staff Regulations of Officials of
the European Communities,
(ii) breach of the duty of have regard to the welfare of officials
and (iii) breach of the principle of sound administration. In par-
ticular, his probationary period took place in conditions which
were unusual and contrary to various internal procedural rules.

The second plea in law alleges breach of the obligation to state
reasons, in that the decision to dismiss did not contain explana-
tions and relied on statements which were contradictory and
less favourable than those which appeared in the first proba-
tionary report.

in that, first,

In the third plea in law, the applicant submits that the decision
to dismiss was disproportionate and vitiated by a manifest error
of assessment,
it did not take into account the
results of certain personality tests and, secondly, a negative
evaluation as head of unit, even were it to be well founded,
should have led only to transfer to a post without such respon-
sibilities.

In his fourth plea in law, the applicant relies on breach of the
rights of the defence and of the principle of equal treatment, in
that the decision to dismiss was taken on the basis of reports
adopted without his first being heard and of which the last was
finalised in breach of the applicable procedural rules.

Action brought on 29 July 2007 — Brown and Volpato v
Commission

(Case F-75/07)

(2007/C 235/55)

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

— annul

of

the

the

decision

the
European Communities published in Administrative Notices
No 55-2006 of 17 November 2006 inasmuch as
it
promoted the applicants to grade AD9, step 1, under the
2006 promotion exercise;

Commission

of

— in so far as is necessary, annul the Commission decisions of
23 April 2007 inasmuch as they dismissed the complaints
brought by the applicants;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, Commission officials, challenge the decision to
promote them, under the 2006 promotion exercise, to grade
AD9, a new grade inserted, since 1 May 2004 between grades
AD8 (formerly A7) and AD10 (formerly A6). They submit that
they should have been promoted not to grade AD9 but to grade
AD10, following the example of what had been done in the
2004 promotion exercise in respect of officials who,
like the
applicants, were in grade A7 on 30 April 2004 and were
eligible for promotion to the next grade, A6.

The applicants rely on very similar pleas in law to the first and
third pleas in law relied on in Case F-105/06 (1).

(1) OJ C 281, 18.11.2006, p. 45.

Action brought on 17 July 2007 — Birkhoff v Commission

(Case F-76/07)

(2007/C 235/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gerhard Birkhoff (Weitnau, Germany) (represented by:
K. Hösgen, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Applicants: Colin Brown (Brussels, Belgium) and Alberto Volpato
(represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese,
(Moscow, Russia)
lawyers)

Form of order sought

— annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 18 April 2007

concerning the applicant's complaint (No R/16/07);

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

6.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/31

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a retired official of the European Communities,
has a dependent daughter who needs a wheelchair on account
of her paraplegia. The applicant submits that the wheelchair can
no longer be used since it has broken due to wear. The applicant
sought reimbursement of the cost of a new wheelchair, which
the Commission refused.

The applicant asserts that its rights under Articles 72 and 110
of the Staff Regulations of the European Communities, read in
conjunction with Section XII(F)(4) of Annex I to the Joint Rules
on sickness insurance for officials of the European Commu-
nities, were infringed.

Action brought on 31 July 2007 — Braun-Neumann v
Parliament

(Case F-79/07)

(2007/C 235/57)

Language of the case: German

marriage was not
recognised by the Bayerisches Oberstes
Landesgericht in its decision of 11 October 1999. The applicant
states that he is therefore the sole ‘surviving spouse’, since the
second marriage of the deceased to Mr Wolfgang Mandt was
not legally valid.

Action brought on 3 August 2007 — Economidis v
Commission

(Case F-80/07)

(2007/C 235/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant:
Ioannis Economidis
(represented by: S. Orlandi,
E. Marchal, lawyers)

(Woluwé-St-Étienne, Belgium)
J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen and

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Applicant: Kurt-Wolfgang Braun-Neumann (Merzig, Germany)
(represented by: P. Ames, lawyer)

Form of order sought

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— order the defendant

to pay with retroactive effect

from
1 August 2004 the other half of the survivor's pension in
right of his wife Gisela Mandt, née Neumann, who died on
25 July 2004, in the monthly sum of EUR 1 670,84 plus
interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank on
the marginal lending facility, increased by 3 %;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament undertook to pay the applicant 50 %
of the survivor's pension in his capacity as widower of Ms Gisela
Mandt, née Neumann. The applicant seeks payment of the survi-
vor's pension in full.

is directed against the European Parliament's
The complaint
decision to recognise the second marriage of the deceased, even
though the decree of divorce of
the Tribunal de première
instance de Namur of 6 September 1995 in relation to the first

— annul the decision reorganising the directorate-general for
RTD inasmuch as that decision fills, in particular, the posts
of head of unit for F.1 ‘Horizontal aspects and coordination’
and for F.5 ‘Health biotechnology’;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In October 2006, the Commission, in the context of a reorgani-
sation of DG RTD, appointed Mr H and Mr X as heads of unit
for F.1 and F.5 respectively. By judgment of 14 December 2006
in Case F-122/05 Economidis v Commission (1), the Civil Service
Tribunal annulled the Commission decision of 23 December
2004, appointing Mr H to the post of Head of Unit ‘Health
biotechnology’, one of the units of the same DG before the reor-
ganisation.

In support of his action, the applicant relies first on an infringe-
ment of Article 233 EC, in that the Commission, by virtue of
the reorganisation of the DG, maintains that it is not possible to
execute the judgment of 14 December 2006. According to the
the decision of 23 December 2004 having been
applicant,
annulled, Mr H cannot be reemployed in the post of Head of
Unit
the DG
concerned.

in the framework of

the reorganisation of