Case F-126/07: Action brought on 30 October 2007 — Van Beers v Commission
Date: 2007-10-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, personnel administration, professional career, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

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.