Case F-124/07: Action brought on 23 October 2007 — Behmer v Parliament
Date: 2007-10-23
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action by staff, anti-discriminatory measure, promotion, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment, workers' representation

C 22/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.1.2008

The applicant made a complaint concerning the assessment and
the lack of any decision regarding the award of an increase in
monthly salary and, in that context, she relied on the assessment
guidelines in force in Europol. The applicant submits that the
assessment is manifestly incorrect.

The applicant submits in particular that her complaints were
declared unfounded by a decision of 26 June 2007 and alleges
breach of the principle of the duty to state reasons since no
reasons were stated for that decision. Nevertheless, the Director
of Europol points out that the assessment was withdrawn and
that a fresh assessment was to be made. That assessment took
place on 25 July 2007.

The present action therefore relates to the decision made on the
complaint and the assessment of 25 July 2007.

Action brought on 15 October 2007 — Bart Nijs v
European Court of Auditors

(Case F-108/07)

(2008/C 22/108)

Language of the case: French

(iv)

the

the power

repeatedly not published;

their dates were
staff
committee elections of 2004 and 2006 were unlawful for a
number of reasons; (v) there were many instances of misuse of
to
the promotion procedure, of usurpation of
appoint allowed to a head of unit, and of personal
interests
likely to compromise the independence of
the appointing
authority in nearly all
its decisions; (vi) the ‘decisions of the
appointing authority’ emanated from the personal interests of
all the applicant's hierarchical superiors, from the concealment
of the call to a colleague to exercise superior functions on an
interim basis, and from failure to refer the matter to the Anti-
Fraud Office; (vii) the appointing authority based the contested
decisions on the same series of manifest errors as the intial deci-
sions, which they confirm, relying on a judgment that does not
have the force of res judicata and without refuting any of the
applicant's arguments; (viii) the committees also involved in the
assessment and promotion procedure were not informed of the
compromised independence of the applicant's hierarchical super-
iors.

Action brought on 23 October 2007 — Behmer v
Parliament

(Case F-124/07)

(2008/C 22/109)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by:
F. Rollinger, lawyer)

Parties

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the European Court of Auditors to
renew the mandate of the Secretary General of the Court of
Auditors for a further period of six years from 1 July 2007

— in the alternative, annul the two measures allegedly consti-
tuting ‘decisions of the appointing authority’ of 8 December
2006 implementing the judgment of
the Court of First
Instance of 3 October 2006 in Case T-171/05, and of
12 July 2007,
complaint of
rejecting the applicant's
12 March 2007

Applicant: Joachim Behmer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Annul

the decision of

the
European Parliament awarding two promotion points to the
applicant for 2005;

the appointing authority of

— Annul

the decision of

the appointing authority not

to

promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in 2006;

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

In support of his action, the applicant relies in particular on the
following facts: (i) the Secretary General of the Court of Audi-
tors acted unlawfully; rather than referring the matter to the
Anti-Fraud Office, he expressly refused to take measures or to
examine the question when he had been informed, with docu-
mentary evidence, of the existence of a fraud to the detriment
of the invalidity pensions system; (ii) an official exercised his
powers in an unlawful manner; (iii) promotion decisions and

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official at the European Parliament in grade
AD 12, alleges above all the unlawfulness of the decisions of
the appointing authority, firstly, to award the applicant two
promotion points for 2005 and, secondly, not to promote him
to grade AD 13 in 2006.

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/57

The applicant submits that there was a manifest error of assess-
ment, breach of the duty to state reasons, breach of point I.6 of
the implementing measures relating to the attribution of promo-
tion points and promotion and breach of the general principles
that recruited officials are entitled to reasonable career prospects
and of equal treatment.

In particular, he submits that there is infringement of Article 45
and Article 110(1) of the Staff Regulations, and puts forward
pleas of illegality and of breach of the principle of the protec-
tion of legitimate expectations.

the applicant claims that he suffered discrimination
Finally,
because of his activities representing the staff,
in breach of
Article 1d and of Article 24b of the Staff Regulations, of the
sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations
and of Article 17 of the framework agreement of 12 July 1990
between the European Parliament and the trade unions or
professional organisations of the staff of the institution.

29 March 2007, the appointing authority definitively confirmed
its decision of 22 February 2007, after an appeal by the appli-
cant against that decision, not to admit her application under
the attestation procedure for 2006.

In support of her action, the applicant claims, firstly, that there
has been a manifest error of assessment.

She submits,
Article 45a of the Staff Regulations is unlawful.

that Article 4(2) of

furthermore,

the GIP of

In particular, the applicant alleges breach of the principles of
equal treatment, of non-discrimination and of proportionality,
breach of the principle of sound administration and the prin-
ciple that recruited officials are entitled to reasonable career
prospects, as well as the principle of the protection of legitimate
expectations.

Action brought on 30 October 2007 — Van Beers v
Commission

(Case F-126/07)

(2008/C 22/110)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Isabelle Van Beers
Applicant:
(represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen,
Marchal, lawyers)

(Woluwe-St-Etienne, Belgium)
J.-N. Louis and E.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the
applicant's application under the attestation procedure for
2006;

— Declare Article 4(2) of the general implementing provisions
(GIP) of Article 45a of the Staff Regulations unlawful, inas-
much as it has the effect either of excluding from considera-
tion the true level of the tasks carried out by a candidate for
attestation or of maintaining a distinction between the
former grades C* and B* since 30 April 2006;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official in grade AST 6, lodged an
the attestation procedure for 2006. On
application under

Action brought on 30 October 2007 — Coto Moreno v
Commission

(Case F-127/07)

(2008/C 22/111)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant:
(represented by: K. Lemmens and C. Doutrelepont, lawyers)

Juana Maria Coto Moreno (Gaborone, Botswana)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 12 February 2007 by which the selec-
tion board for competition EPSO/AD/28/05 refused to
include the applicant in the reserve list for that competition,
and consequently:

— award her damages and interest of EUR 25 000 as

compensation for non-material loss;

— award her damages to cover legal

fees estimated at

EUR 8 000 as shown in the attached document;

— declare, principally, that the competent authorities must
adopt all appropriate measures fairly to compensate for
the disadvantage caused by the annulled measure, that is
to say the inclusion of the applicant in the reserve list or

— award the applicant, failing such inclusion, in the alter-
native, compensation by way of damages and interest for
her material loss in the amount of EUR 384 000;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.