Case F-78/07: Action brought on 27 July 2007 — Boudova and Others v Commission
Date: 2007-10-20
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, Publications Office of the European Union, action by staff, appointment of staff, equal treatment, professional career, regulations for civil servants, servant (EU)

C 247/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.10.2007

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Action brought on 6 July 2007 — Gering v Europol

(Case F-68/07)

(2007/C 247/69)

Language of the case: Dutch

and not as from 1 August 2003, is justified by the fact that it
was as from 1 December 2004 only that the applicant started
performing activities of a similar importance to those of heads
of unit classified in Grade 4 and involving similar responsibil-
ities. The applicant challenges that argument and submits that
Europol has failed to explain how his tasks and responsibilities
in the period from 1 August 2003 to 1 December 2004 differed
from those of other heads of units. Furthermore, Europol has
not established the facts and circumstances to show that the
applicant's activities were less intense and/or included fewer
responsibilities than those of other heads of unit.

Parties

Applicant: Radolf Gering (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented
by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Action brought on 27 July 2007 — Boudova and Others v
Commission

Form of order sought

— annul the complaints decision of 5 April 2007, sent on
10 April 2007, and, so far as is necessary, the contract of
24 April 2007 also, in so far as it concerns classification.

— order Europol:

— primarily: to pay the applicant, as from 1 August 2003,
a salary corresponding to Grade 4.2 or, if the Tribunal
considers
salary corresponding to
a
Grade 4.1;

it necessary,

Parties

(Case F-78/07)

(2007/C 247/70)

Language of the case: French

— in the alternative:

to pay the applicant, as

from
1 August 2003, a salary corresponding to Grade 4.6, as
from 1 August 2005,
salary corresponding to
a
Grade 4.8 and, as from 1 August 2007, a salary corre-
sponding to Grade 4.9;

— order Europol to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges in particular the Europol decision of
5 April 2007 and the addendum of 24 April 2007 to his
recruitment contract inasmuch as those acts classified him in
Grade 4, step 2, with effect from 1 December 2004 and not
with effect from 1 August 2003, which was the date of his
recruitment.

Applicants: Stanislava Boudova (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and
Others (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul

the

implied decision of

the Commission of
23 September 2006, confirmed by the letter of the Director-
the
General of
European Communities (OPOCE), to reject the applicants'
application of 23 May 2006, the purpose of which was:

the Office for Official Publications of

The applicant submits that Europol should have respected the
principle of equality in remunerating and classifying the
members of its staff. According to Europol, the decision to clas-
sify the applicant in a higher grade as from 1 December 2004,

— the revision of their classification in grade B*3 by the
decision to recruit them as probationary officials and
their reclassification in grade B*6 as at the time at which
that decision took effect;

20.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/43

— the reconstitution on that basis of their careers between
the date when they took up their duties as probationary
officials and the date of the decision to be taken;

— the payment of the difference between the remuneration
to which they would have been entitled during that
period if they had been classified in grade B*6 and that
which they received on account of their classification in
grade B*3;

In support of their action, the applicants rely on one plea in law
alleging infringement of Article 5(3) and (4) and Article 12(3)
of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations interpreted by reference
to the principle of equal treatment. In particular, Article 5(4) of
Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations should be interpreted as
meaning that it is applicable to temporary servants who were
appointed officials on the basis of open competitions, some-
thing which would preclude the classification in grade of that
group from being fixed on the basis of Article 12(3) of
Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

— order the defendant to pay the costs

(1) OJ L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants state that they were recruited by the Commission
as auxiliary staff to the posts of proofreaders within OPOCE
before the entry into force, on 1 May 2004, of Council Regu-
lation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004
amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European
Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other
servants of the European Communities (1) in view of the enlar-
gement and of filling those posts by open competition.

After they had passed the open competitions published at grade
B5/B4 before 1 May for the purpose of filling those posts, the
applicants were recruited as probationary officials on the basis
of reserve lists published after that date. They were classified in
grade B*3 on the basis of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the
Staff Regulations’).

The applicants submit that their action is admissible on account
of a new substantial
fact although they did not bring a
complaint against the decisions laying down their classification
in grade in the period laid down in the Staff Regulations for
filing a complaint. That new substantial fact is the decision of
the Bureau of the European Parliament of 13 February 2006 to
reclassify the temporary servants who were appointed officials,
on the basis of open competitions, after 1 May 2004, in the
grade in which they would have been classified if they had been
recruited as officials before that date.

Action brought on 6 August 2007 — Barbin v Parliament

(Case F-81/07)

(2007/C 247/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Florence Barbin (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)
(repre-
sented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen and E. Marchal,
lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— annul the Parliament's decision not to promote the applicant

to grade AD 12 in the 2006 promotion procedure

— order the defendant to pay the costs

that

they have been discriminated
The applicants consider
against by the reclassification of those officials of the Parliament
and take the view that they should be entitled to the same treat-
ment, inasmuch as they submit that they were really recruited as
temporary servants and not as auxiliary staff. In their opinion,
their contracts fall within the scope of Article 2 of the Condi-
tions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS) and not of
Article 3a thereof given that they had to fill posts which were
temporarily vacant and not to replace officials or temporary
servants who were unable for the time being to perform their
duties. In the alternative, the applicants submit that, even if they
had been recruited as auxiliary staff, their position would in any
event have been analogous to that of temporary servants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that, according to the internal provisions
of the Parliament governing promotion, the average length of
time spent in grade AD 11 is four years. The applicant has been
classified in that grade since 1 April 2001 and had reached the
relevant threshold for promotion to grade AD 12 in the 2006
promotion procedure. Furthermore, the Promotion Committee
entered her name on the list of officials who were recommended
for promotion to that grade by virtue of the procedure in ques-
tion.