Case F-93/07: Action brought on 17 September 2007 — Acosta Iborra and Others v Commission
Date: 2007-11-24
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, equal treatment, personnel administration, promotion

C 283/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.11.2007

Action brought on 17 September 2007 — Evraets v
Commission

(Case F-92/07)

(2007/C 283/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Pascal Evraets (Lambusart, Belgium) (represented by:
N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decision of the appointing authority publishing
the list of officials promoted to grade AST 4 under the
in so far as the Commission
2006 promotion procedure,
did not
the applicant's eligibility for
take into account
promotion for the purpose of the 2006 promotion proce-
dure and in so far as the applicant's name is not included in
the list of promoted officials;

— so far as necessary, annul

the express decision of

the
Commission of 6 June 2007 rejecting the complaint
brought by the applicant under Article 90(2) of the Staff
Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the
Staff Regulations’) on 16 February 2007;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former temporary servant appointed an official
in grade AST 3 from 16 April 2004 after being successful in an
internal competition, was held to be ineligible for promotion
under the 2006 promotion procedure since he had not demon-
strated the ability to work in a third language in accordance
with Article 45(2) of the Staff Regulations.

(‘the GIP’). The

applicant maintains

In support of his appeal, the applicant is putting forward three
pleas, the first of which alleges infringement of Article 45(1) of
the Staff Regulations and the illegality of Article 10(5) of the
General Provisions Implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regula-
tions
that, under
Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations, which requires two years'
service in order to be eligible for promotion, he could have
been promoted on 16 April 2006, that is, before the entry into
force of the requirement to demonstrate the ability to work in a
third language. Article 11 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations
provides that Article 45(2) does not apply to promotions which
take effect prior to 1 May 2006. The applicant submits that, by
requiring that he have the ability to work in a third language on
the ground that his promotion, under Article 10(5) of the GIP,
would not become effective until 1 May 2006, the Commission
infringed Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations.

inter alia,

The second plea alleges unequal treatment and the illegality,
first, of Article 11 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and,
secondly, of Article 1(1) of the Common Rules on laying down
the procedure for implementing Article 45(2) of the Staff Regu-
lations, adopted by the Commission on 19 July 2006. The
applicant submits,
that officials recruited between
15 April 2004 and 30 April 2004 were employed under the
same provisions of the Staff Regulations as officials recruited
before 15 April 2004, that is, before Article 45(2) of the Staff
Regulations came into force. Consequently, by making officials
recruited between 15 and 30 April 2004 subject to promotion
conditions which are more restrictive than those for officials
recruited before 15 April 2004, Article 11 of Annex XIII to the
Staff Regulations and Article 1(1) of the Common Rules are
discriminatory. Furthermore,
in
accordance with Article 5(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regula-
tions, knowledge of a third language is not required for the
purposes of the first promotion of officials who, while having
been recruited after 1 May 2004, were temporary servants prior
to that date. The applicant submits it is unlawful to require
knowledge of a third language in the case of officials who, like
the applicant, were appointed before that date.

the applicant argues

that,

The third plea alleges infringement of the principles of sound
administrative management, effectiveness and the protection of
legitimate expectations. The applicant submits inter alia that, in
the implementation of Article 45(2) of the Staff Regulations, the
Commission did not show all the due care and attention neces-
sary and did not meet the legitimate expectations of officials
eligible for promotion under the 2006 promotion procedure.
Specifically, the Commission failed to adopt adequate transi-
tional provisions and to take the necessary measures in due
time to enable the applicant to learn a third language and thus
be eligible for promotion.

Action brought on 17 September 2007 — Acosta Iborra
and Others v Commission

(Case F-93/07)

(2007/C 283/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Acosta Iborra and Others (Alkmaar, Netherlands)
(represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

24.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/45

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decision of the appointing authority publishing
the list of officials promoted under the 2006 promotion
procedure, in so far as the Commission did not take into
account the applicants' eligibility for promotion in respect of
the 2006 promotion procedure and in so far as their names
are not included on the list of promoted officials;

— so far as necessary, annul the Commission's express deci-
sions of 6 June 2007 rejecting the complaint brought by the
applicants under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of
Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regula-
tions’) on 16 February 2007;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are relying on very similar pleas to those
advanced in Case F-92/07, the notice for which is published in
the same issue of the Official Journal of the European Union.

In support of their action, the applicants are relying on the
following pleas:

— infringement of Article 5(5) of

the Staff Regulations of
Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regula-
tions’);

— infringement of Article 6(2) of the Staff Regulations and

Article 9 of Annex XIII thereof;

— infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

The applicants state that, by setting the promotion threshold to
Grade AD 13 at 98,5 for officials under the Research and JRC
budgets, the Commission failed to take into account, first, the
jobs which, under Article 9 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regula-
tions, were effectively vacant at the Research DG and the JRC
DG and, second, the specific nature of the situation of officials
covered by those budgets.

The applicants maintain that, by failing to do this, the Commis-
sion has failed to comply with its decision of 20 July 2005 on
the procedure for the promotion of officials remunerated from
the research section of the general budget, a decision which
aims to establish rules ensuring the principle of equal treatment
is observed between officials under the different budgets.

Action brought on 21 September 2007 — Rebizant and
Others v Commission

(Case F-94/07)

(2007/C 283/81)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 24 September 2007 — De Fays v
Commission

(Case F-97/07)

(2007/C 283/82)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Jean Rebizant

Applicant:
(Karlsruhe, Germany) and Others
(represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Lois and E. Marchal,
lawyers)

Parties

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Applicant: Chantal De Fays (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
P.-P. Gehuchten and Ph. Reyniers, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

Form of order sought

— declare unlawful the decision fixing the promotion thresh-
olds towards grade AD 13 applicable to officials under the
‘Research’/‘Joint Research Centre’
(JRC) and ‘Operations’
budget;

— annul

the decision of

to
promote the applicants to grade AD 13 under the 2006
promotion procedure;

the appointing authority not

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 21 June
2007 and, so far as necessary, its decision of 21 November
2006;

— order the Commission to pay the salaries suspended, plus

default interest;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

— order the Commission to pay the costs.