Case F-89/07: Action brought on 6 September 2007 — Kuchta v European Central Bank
Date: 2007-11-10
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Central Bank, European official, action by staff, damages, equal treatment, pay, personnel administration

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/71

— Order the EAR to pay the amount of EUR 100 000 in order
to compensate the non-material damage suffered by the
service related fault committed by EAR as it refused to take
any specific measure to comply with judgement T-471/04;

— Order

the EAR to pay interest on the aforementioned
judgement

the publication of

amounts of 3 % since
T-471/04;

the withdrawal of seniority in grade and the requirement of
mobility which was imposed solely on successful candidates;

— consequently, accord the successful candidates the seniority

in grade by annulling the contested acts;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

— Order the EAR to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

applicant mainly

EAR infringed
The
Article 233 EC in so far as it did not
take the necessary
measures to comply with the above-mentioned judgement of
the Court of First Instance.

that The

claims

(1) OJ C 96, of 22.4.2006, p. 13.

The applicants, successful candidates in internal competition
B/277 published on 9 July 2007 by the General Secretariat of
the Council, were first appointed in Category B maintaining the
seniority of grade which they had acquired in Categories C and
D. Later, their seniority in grade was limited to the date of
taking up their new duties, although personnel who had
reached Category B under the attestation procedure and not
because of a competition were able to keep the seniority at
issue. In those circumstances, the applicants rely on the infringe-
ment of the provisions and breach of the principles cited in the
forms of order sought above.

Action brought on 22 August 2007 — Anselmo and Others
v Council

Action brought on 6 September 2007 — Kuchta v
European Central Bank

(Case F-85/07)

(2007/C 269/129)

Language of the case: French

(Case F-89/07)

(2007/C 269/130)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Ana Anselmo (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (repre-
sented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— annul, first, the decisions of the appointing authority of
11 May 2007, rejecting the complaints brought by the appli-
cants concerning a difference in treatment between, on the
one hand, the successful candidates in internal competition
N/277 and, on the other hand, the officials who benefit
from the attestation procedure as defined by the Council
decision of 2 December 2004 concerning the detailed rules
for implementing the attestation procedure and, secondly,
the decisions contested by those complaints;

— find that

there was an infringement of Article 5(2) of
Annex XIII
the
to the Staff Regulations of Officials of
European Communities by the non-recognition of seniority
in grade in respect of the successful candidates in internal
competition B/277;

— find that there was a breach of the principle of equal treat-
ment and that of sound administration resulting both from

Parties

Applicant:
sented by: B. Karthaus, lawyer)

Jan Kuchta (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

(repre-

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

— order the defendant to pay the applicant damages in the

sum of EUR 1;

— declare

that

the decision addressed to the

applicant
concerning the annual salary and bonus review (ASBR) for
2006 of 31 December 2006 is invalid;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant's out-of-court costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action concerns an infringement of provisions of data
protection law inasmuch as the applicant's staff report for 2006
was forwarded in full to his new superior without his knowl-
edge.

C 269/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.11.2007

In addition, the applicant complains of a breach of the principle
of equal treatment regarding the annual salary and bonus review
(ASBR) procedure and failure to consult the defendant's staff
representatives in accordance with the rules when conducting
the applicant's ASBR in 2006.

powers and a breach of the principles of equal treatment and
reasonable career prospects.

The applicant claims, in addition, that the Commission infringed
Article 1d(1) of the Staff Regulations, inasmuch as it rejected his
candidatures principally because of his African origin.

(1) Judgment of 14 December 2006 in Case F-122/05, OJ C 331,

30.12.2006, p. 47.

Action brought on 17 September 2007 — Traore v
Commission

(Case F-90/07)

(2007/C 269/131)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Amadou Traore (Rhodes Saint Genèse, Belgium)
(represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Action brought on 13 September 2007 — Torijano
Montero v Council

(Case F-91/07)

(2007/C 269/132)

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

— annul the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature for
the post of chargé d'affaires ad interim at the Commission
Delegation in Togo, to which Mr X was appointed;

— annul Mr X's appointment to the post;

— annul the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature for
the post of Head of Operations at the Commission Delega-
tion in Tanzania, to which Mr Y was appointed;

— annul Mr Y's appointment to the post;

— order the defendant to pay, by way of compensation for the
non-material damage and the detriment to the applicant's
career, in the sum of EUR 3 500;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant relies, first, on breach of
the recruitment procedure, inasmuch as (i) the level of the posts
at issue was set at Grades AD 9 to AD 14, in breach of the prin-
ciples laid down, principally in the judgment in Economidis v
Commission (1), and (ii) the notice of vacancy for the first of the
posts at
issue and the order of priority laid down in
Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations of Official of the European
Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’) were not complied with.
He adds that the comparative examination of the merits was
not carried out, demonstrating the existence of a misuse of

Javier Torijano Montero (Brussels, Belgium)

Applicant:
(repre-
sented by: S. Rodrigues, R. Albelice and C. Bernard-Glanz,
lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— annul the notice of vacancy of 31 October 2006 issued by
the Council, by Staff Note
the General Secretariat of
No 171/06, concerning the post of Head of Department
‘External Security’ in the Council Security Office;

— annul

the decision of

the

appointing

authority of

31 May 2007 rejecting the applicant's complaint;

— state to the appointing authorities the consequences of the
annulment of
in particular,
the contested decision and,
reconsider the grade requirements in the notice of vacancy
in order to allow the applicant to submit his candidature;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official in Grade AD 6, challenges the above-
mentioned notice of vacancy for limiting the possibility of
submitting candidatures for the post of Head of Department
‘External Security’ in the Council Security Office, a post to be
filled in Grade AD 11, to officials in Grade AD 8 at least.