Case F-131/07: Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Baniel-Kubinova and Others v Parliament
Date: 2007-10-31
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action by staff, allowances and expenses, regulations for civil servants

C 183/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2008

Operative part of the order

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The parties shall bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 315, 22.12.2007, p. 46.

Action brought on 22 October 2007 — Strack v
Commission

(Case F-119/07)

(2008/C 183/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany)
H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

(represented by:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul

the Commission's decisions of 30 May 2005,
19 December 2006, 12 January 2007 and 20 July 2007 in
so far as they reject the conduct of an independent media-
tion procedure in respect of all existing disputes between the
applicant and the defendant and immediate intervention by
the defendant and the adoption of dispute resolution
measures;

— annul the Commission's decisions of 26 February 2007 and
20 July 2007 in so far as they refuse payment of a provi-
sional allowance pursuant to Article 19(4) of the Common
Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occu-
pational disease;

— order the Commission to pay appropriate damages to the
applicant of at
the non-material
least EUR 15 000 for
damage and damage to health caused to the applicant by the
decisions sought
to be annulled in accordance with the
above applications, together with interest, from the date on
which the action was brought, at a rate of 2 percentage
points per year above the main refinancing operations rate
fixed by the European Central Bank for the period in ques-
tion;

The first and second heads of claim in the applicant's applica-
tion are based on the breach of the duty of care owed to the
applicant by the defendant, on the principle of good administra-
tion and on the prohibition of abuse of discretion, or errors of
assessment in the contested Commission decisions. In addition,
as regards the first two heads of claim, the applicant objects on
the basis that the decisions are contrary to the second sentence
of the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations
of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regula-
tions’) and in breach of his fundamental rights to respect for
integrity and for private life which are protected by
physical
Articles 3(1) and 7 (also, with regard to the second head of
claim, by Articles 41 and 47) of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights, and by Article 8 (and also by Article 13, as regards the
second head of claim) of the European Convention on Human
Rights.

With regard to the second head of claim, the applicant also
objects on the basis that
the contested decisions infringe
Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and the procedural provi-
sions of the Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and
of occupational disease, in particular Article 15 et seq. thereof.

In his third head of claim, the applicant submits that, on the
basis of what he regards as the defendant's administrative error,
he is entitled,
in accordance with the second paragraph of
Article 288 of the EC Treaty and general principles of law, to
receive appropriate compensation for the non-material damage
suffered by him.

By the fourth head of claim, the applicant asks the Tribunal to
order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, the
latter having triggered the present action by making allegedly
untrue statements, in its rejection of the complaint, concerning
the position allegedly taken by the medical committee.

Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Baniel-Kubinova
and Others v Parliament

(Case F-131/07)

(2008/C 183/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Barbora Baniel-Kubinova and Others (Luxembourg,
Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis
and É. Marchal, lawyers)

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Defendant: European Parliament

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/33

Form of order sought

Action brought on 16 April 2008 — Spee v Europol

— Annul

the decisions of

the
European Parliament not to grant the applicants the daily
subsistence allowance laid down in Article 10 of Annex VII
to the Staff Regulations;

the appointing authority of

(Case F-43/08)

(2008/C 183/66)

Language of the case: Dutch

— Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Parties

In support of their action, the applicants invoke the infringe-
ment of Article 71 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 10 of
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

Applicant: David Spee (Rijswijk, Netherlands) (represented by: P.
de Casparis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of Europol's decision to withdraw
the offer of employment for which the applicant had submitted
an application and to subsequently republish it, and an applica-
tion for damages

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul

the decision of 7 January 2008 issued after a
complaint and the underlying decisions of 20 June 2007
and 6 July 2007 to declare vacant once again the post of
First Officer in the IMT1 Infrastructure Unit and not to
appoint the applicant;

— Order Europol to search for an equitable solution to the
situation in which the applicant finds himself following the
rash and defective decision;

— Order Europol

to pay damages to the applicant

in the

amount of EUR 5 000 net;

— Order Europol to pay the costs.

Action brought on 18 March 2008 — Carvalhal Garcia v
Council

(Case F-40/08)

(2008/C 183/65)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Daniela Carvalhal Garcia (Sines, Portugal) (represented
by: F. Antas da Cunha, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of
education allowance for the applicant's daughter

the Council's decision refusing to grant

the

Action brought on 19 May 2008 — Giannini v
Commission

Form of order sought

(Case F-49/08)

(2008/C 183/67)

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

Language of the case: French

— Annul the final decision of the Council of the European
Union's head of personnel of 16 November 2007 and rule
that it must be replaced by a separate decision granting the
education allowance for the applicant's daughter with regard
to the 2006/2007 school year

Parties

Applicant: Massimo Giannini (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities