Case F-104/07: Action brought on 8 October 2007 — Hoppenbrouwers v Commission
Date: 2007-11-24
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), child care, illness, personnel administration, regulations for civil servants, servant (EU), staff assessment

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.