Case F-127/07: Action brought on 30 October 2007 — Coto Moreno v Commission
Date: 2007-10-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, competition (EU), indemnification, personnel administration, 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.

C 22/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.1.2008

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant participated in the EPSO/AD/28/05 competition.
The competition selection board refused to include the applicant
in the reserve list
that competition by decision of
12 February 2007, which the applicant seeks to have annulled.

for

In support of her action, the applicant raises four pleas in law:

The first plea alleges, principally, a manifest error of appraisal
either alone or in conjunction with a failure to state reasons
and/or breach of the principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti. The
selection board, whose position in that regard is ambiguous,
took the view that the applicant gave ‘sufficient’ answers which
nevertheless had weak points. That was manifestly not the case,
particularly as the applicant answered in accordance with the
Commission rules.

The second plea alleges, also principally, breach of the notice of
competition and of the principle of equality either alone or in
conjunction with compliance with the principle of reasonable-
ness.

The third plea, also principally, alleges breach of the duty to
state reasons in that the applicant clearly asked the selection
board why an answer which she gave in the oral test was
considered incorrect or at least insufficient. The applicant has
not received any response despite the duty to state reasons.

Finally and in the alternative, the applicant alleges a manifest
error of appraisal either alone or in conjunction with the prin-
ciple of equality and the principle of proportionality. The mark
awarded was,
in addition, disproportionate in relation to the
results (she was given the mark of 25/50) and is in breach of
the principle of equality since the applicant was treated like any
other candidate who gave answers considered sufficient, not
only with regard to knowledge but also with regard to other
criteria.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 December 2007 —
Moschonaki v European Foundation for the Improvement
of Living and Working Conditions (EUROFOUND)

(Case F-3/07) (1)

(2008/C 22/112)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be
removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 56, 10.3.2007, p. 43.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 November 2007
— Karatzoglou v European Agency for Reconstruction
(EAR)

(Case F-71/07) (1)

(2008/C 22/113)

Language of the case: English

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be
removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007, p. 70.