Case F-81/07: Action brought on 6 August 2007 — Barbin v Parliament
Date: 2007-10-20
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action by staff, appointment of staff, promotion, staff assessment

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.

C 247/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.10.2007

According to the applicant, the Appointing Authority did not
provide any information to explain the refusal to promote her
and thus infringed the obligation to state reasons. Furthermore,
the contested decision is based on the decision, which is the
subject-matter of Case F-44/07 (1), to allocate the applicant only
one merit point. Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of
Article 1d of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European
Communities.

— annul, so far as necessary, the note dated 23 April 2007, ref.
ADMINB.2/MB/ade D(2007) 8725, rejecting the applicant's
complaint of 27 December 2006 against the contested deci-
sion and the note of 9 October 2006;

— annul, so far as necessary, the note of 27 September 2005,

ref. ADMIN/IDOC/GC/eh D(2005) 22005;

(1) OJ C 155 of 7.7.2007, p. 45.

Action brought on 25 August 2007 — Marcuccio v
Commission

(Case F-86/07)

(2007/C 247/72)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

— ascertain the reality of the actions and conduct complained
of in the applicant's claim of 10 July 2006, declaring them
to be unlawful, or, in the alternative, order the Commission
to carry out an investigation without delay;

— order the Commission to communicate the results of such
investigation without delay and in writing, giving them
suitable publicity and making them available to the public;

— order the Commission forthwith to destroy the original and
all copies of the archive note dated 14 August 2001, headed
‘Conduite professionnelle de M. Luigi Marcuccio, conseiller
économique à la délégation en Angola’, and to notify the
applicant in writing of that destruction;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of
EUR 1 520 000, or such other sum as the Tribunal may
consider just, in compensation for damage suffered by the
applicant to date;

implementation of

— order the Commission to pay the applicant, from tomorrow
until final
the
applicant, the daily sum of EUR 1 000, or such other sum
as the Tribunal may consider just, to be paid on the first day
of each month in arrear, in respect of damage suffered by
the applicant during the period between tomorrow and the
date of implementation.

judgment in favour of

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase,
Cipressa, lawyer)

Italy)

(represented by: G.

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision (‘the contested decision’),

in whatever
form, by which the Commission rejected the applicant's
claim of 10 July 2006 for compensation for damage caused
to him by the unlawful actions and conduct, particularly
psychological harassments, perpetrated by the Commission's
servants during the applicant's assignment to the Commis-
sion delegation in Angola;

— annul, so far as necessary, the note dated 9 October 2006,

prot. PMO.3/MLP/mc D(2006) 9277;

Pleas in law and main arguments

Absolute failure to state reasons, and illogicality, inconsistency,
irrationality, confusion and pretexts in the reasons put forward
by the Commission; (2) serious and manifest breach of the law;
(3) infringement of the duty to pay due regard to the welfare of
officials and of the duty of sound administration.