Case F-83/07: Action brought on 14 August 2007 — Zangerl-Posselt v Commission
Date: 2007-10-06
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, European Commission, Germany, action by staff, competition (EU), recognition of diplomas

C 235/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.10.2007

In the first case,

Moreover, the applicant submits that there are two possibilities,
either the Unit ‘Health biotechnology’ still exists, but under
another name and with its tasks redefined, or it has indeed been
the administration should have
abolished.
executed the judgment of 14 December and, in the second case,
the administration should have opened the procedure to fill the
posts of head of unit created by the reorganisation and, accord-
ingly, permitted him to submit his candidature. In not having
followed that procedure, the defendant infringed Articles 4, 7,
24 and 29 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European
Communities and the principle of reasonable career prospects.

amendments to the Staff Regulations, some were appointed to
grade A*10/AD 10 while others, including the applicant, were
appointed to grade A*9/AD 9. The applicant pleads an infringe-
ment of the principles of equal treatment and reasonable career
prospects for officials.

(1) OJ C 331, 30.12.2006, p. 47.

Action brought on 14 August 2007 — Zangerl-Posselt v
Commission

(Case F-83/07)

(2007/C 235/60)

Language of the case: German

Action brought on 6 August 2007 — Dittert v Commission

(Case F-82/07)

(2007/C 235/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Brigitte Zangerl-Posselt
(represented by: S. Paulmann, lawyer)

(Saarbrücken, Germany)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Form of order sought

Applicant: Daniel Dittert
sented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

(Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

(repre-

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— annul the decision of the selection board for competition
EPSO/AST/27/06 (Assistants (AST 1) having as their main
language German) not to admit the applicant to the practical
and oral tests for that competition, communicated to the
applicant by a letter from EPSO of 18 June 2007 and
confirmed by letter of 25 July 2007;

Form of order sought

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— annul

the decision of

the Commission of

the European
Communities to promote the applicant to grade AD 9, and
not AD 10, under
the 2006 promotion procedure, as
confirmed by that Institution's decision of 23 April 2007,
rejecting the applicant's complaint No R/132/07;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to pay

the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an established official at the Commission, having
been promoted to the old grade A 7 with effect from 1 April
2002, was on 30 April 2004 eligible for promotion to
grade A 6. On 1 May 2004, the Appointing Authority replaced
grade A 7 in the applicant's staff file with the new grade A*8,
stating the reason for the amendment to be the ‘career reform
of 1 May 2004’. Subsequently, grade A*8 was renamed AD 8
with effect from 1 May 2006.

The applicant submits that though the officials promoted in
2004 and those promoted in 2005 or 2006 from the old
grade A 7 were all promoted after the entry into force of the

Pleas in law and main arguments

The selection board for competition EPSO/AST/27/06 (Assis-
tants (AST 1) having as their main language German) did not
admit the applicant to the practical and oral tests, since she did
not have the required level of education (Abitur).

The applicant claims, in particular, that her level of education
(Realschulabschluss) meets the requirements of Section A.II.1(ii)
of
the competition notice. The classification of diplomas is
based, both in Germany and at European level, on the Interna-
tional Standard Classification of Education of 1997 (ISCED), drawn
up by UNESCO, the terminology of which was also reproduced
in the competition notice. According to that classification, the
Realschulabschluss is a diploma attesting to a level of secondary
education (ISCED level 2) and gives access to post-secondary
education (ISCED level 4).

In addition, the applicant pleads that the defendant's decision is
insufficiently and incorrectly reasoned.