Case F-97/07: Action brought on 24 September 2007 — De Fays v Commission
Date: 2007-11-24
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, illness, pay, payment, rights of the defence, staff assessment

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.

C 283/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.11.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

The applicant, a Commission official suffering from a sickness
which she claims forced her absence from work, challenges the
decisions of the appointing authority to treat her successive
absences from 19 October 2006 as unauthorised and to there-
fore apply Article 60 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’) with regard to
her.

first

that

submits

The applicant
the arbitration procedure
initiated on the basis of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations took
place in breach of her right to a fair hearing and the rule of audi
alteram partem. What is more, the report of the independent
doctor did not give sufficient reasons and was vitiated by a
manifest error of assessment.

The applicant also maintains that the decision forcing her to go
in the light of current scientific opinion,
to the workplace,
infringes the principle of taking precautions.

Action brought on 8 October 2007 — Hoppenbrouwers v
Commission

(Case F-104/07)

(2007/C 283/83)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Micheline Hoppenbrouwers (Dilbeek, Belgium) (repre-
sented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— annul

the decision of

the Authority Responsible

for
Concluding Contracts of Employment of 25 June 2007
rejecting the applicant's complaint of 16 March 2007
against the administrative decision notified on 18 December
2006 refusing to employ the applicant as a member of the
contract staff under Article 2(1) of the Annex to the Condi-
tions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS);

— Insofar as is necessary, annul also the said decision of

18 December 2006;

— Order the Defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The first plea in law in the action is derived from the infringe-
ment of Article 82(3)(d) of the CEOS, Article 83 of the CEOS,
Article 33 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European
Communities and Article 2(1) of the Annex to the CEOS as well
as from a manifest error of assessment.

The applicant states, first, that the administration refused to
offer her a contract as a member of the contract staff for an
indefinite period because she was in a state of temporarily unfit-
ness to work on 1 May 2005, the date which, according to the
Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employ-
ment, was the final date for contracts for members of
the
to take effect under the transitional measures
contract staff
provided for by Article 2(1) of the Annex to the CEOS. The
applicant submits that only a permanent unfitness to work
could justify the rejection of her candidature.

The second plea in law in the action is derived from an infringe-
ment of the principle of non-discrimination, inasmuch as the
applicant was, without
legitimate or reasonable justification,
unfairly disadvantaged in comparison with other persons who,
having worked, like the applicant, in nurseries and after-school
childcare pursuant to a contract governed by Belgian law, bene-
fited from a contract as a member of the contract staff for an
indefinite period.