Case F-112/07: Action brought on 16 October 2007 — Doumas v Commission
Date: 2007-12-22
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, indemnification, professional career, reintegration into working life, unpaid leave

C 315/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.12.2007

Finally, the applicant submits that, in any event, the contested
decisions infringe the general principles of transparency, good
faith and the protection of legitimate expectations.

into consideration not only the interests of the service but also
those of the official concerned.

In a subsidiary manner, the Applicant stresses that he was nomi-
nated Head of Unit ad interim because the compulsory mobility
plan obliged the holder of the post in question to switch to
another post. For this reason, he alleges that its case should be
covered by the last part of Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations,
according to which the duration of a temporary posting can
exceed one year, where, directly or indirectly, the posting is to
replace an official who is seconded to another post in the inter-
ests of the service.

Action brought on 8 October 2007 — Daskalakis v
Commission

(Case F-107/07)

(2007/C 315/89)

Language of the case: English

Action brought on 16 October 2007 — Doumas v
Commission

Parties

Applicant: Constantin Daskalakis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented
by: S. A. Pappas, lawyer)

(Case F-112/07)

(2007/C 315/90)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

Parties

— Annul

the decision of

the Appointing Authority dated
28 June 2007 to the extent that it does not award the
management premium provided for in Article 7(2) of the
Staff Regulations for a period longer than one year;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official called upon to occupy temporarily a
post of Head of Unit, appeals the decision by which the
Commission, when calculating his salary, refused to take into
account the premium that he was granted as Head of Unit ad
interim, on the ground that, according to Article 7(2) of the
Staff Regulations, this premium could be allowed only for one
year, even if the Applicant was still acting as Head of Unit after
that period had expired.

The Applicant claims that the time-limit provided for in the
abovementioned provision refers only to the duration of the
temporary posting and does not affect the remuneration corre-
sponding to it, if the temporary posting is prolonged beyond
if the
the duration of one year. According to the Applicant,
Administration is not able to fill the vacancy in one year,
it
cannot invoke its own failure against the officer occupying the
post ad interim for a longer period.

The applicant alleges, in addition, infringement of the duty to
have regard for the welfare of the officials and of the principle
of good administration. The Commission should have taken

Applicant: Georgios Doumas (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul

the decision rejecting the applicant's

request of

24 November 2006;

— order the European Commission to pay the applicant the
remuneration which he would have
from
1 November 2003 until 16 September 2007, the date of his
effective reinstatement, as compensation for his material
damage;

received

to increase or diminution in the course of

— order the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 200 000,
subject
the
proceedings, for the damage which he is suffering in terms
of delay in his career and for loss of the chance of making
progress in his career (promotion, step, pension …), and, in
respect of non-material damage, particularly the damage to
his state of health, because of the state of uncertainty as to
the progress of his career for more than three years as a
result of the Appointing Authority's (‘the AIPN’) wrongful
acts or omissions;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

22.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/47

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official in step 3 of Grade A5, by e-mail of
1 August 2003, three months before the end of his leave on
personal grounds (‘CCP’), taken from 1 October 2002 until
31 October 2003, stated his wish not to apply for an extension
to his CCP. On 24 November 2006, he requested the AIPN,
first, to reinstate him in the first vacant post corresponding to
his grade and, second, compensation for the loss which he was
suffering because of his non-reinstatement as a result of the
Commission's wrongful acts or omissions, such reinstatement in
the function group of administrator being possible only from
16 September 2007.

In support of his action, the applicant pleads, among other
things, breach of Article 40 of the Staff Regulations, of Article 4
the Commission's decision of 5 September 1988,
et seq. of
which applied to the end of his CCP, and of Article 8 of the
Commission's new decision of 28 April 2004 on CCP which
entered into force on 1 May 2004.

The applicant pleads, in addition, that the Commission's deci-
sion not to reinstate him is vitiated by a total failure to state
reasons.

The applicant claims, in particular, that the repetition of those
wrongful acts or omissions which are causing him significant
damage
constitutes psychological harassment within the
meaning of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations.

The applicant submits finally that the Commission has infringed
Article 40(4) of the Staff Regulations and the principle of sound
administration.

Action brought on 19 October 2007 — Wenning v Europol

(Case F-114/07)

(2007/C 315/91)

Language of the case: English

Parties

— annul the decision of the Europol's Director of 21 December
2006 not to prolong the appellant's contract and his reinte-
gration at Europol as from 1 October 2007;

— as consequence, the annulment of the Staff Development
and Review Form on which the impugned decision is based;

— the award of compensation for the material and moral

prejudice suffered;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision not to prolong the appellant's contract violates the
duty of motivation, as it does not contain itself the reasons justi-
fying it. It based on an invalid Staff Development and Review
Form.

The appellant's Staff Report has been drafted in violation of
Europol rules on the staff Development and Review Process
(Article 28 of Europol Staff Rules and Staff Development and
Review Process Guidelines) and it contains many errors of
appraisal having led to an error in law.

The assessment process has been used by the appellant's super-
iors with the aim to dismiss him, instead than for evaluating
him. This constitutes also misuse and abuse of powers.

The only objective pursued the appellant's superiors was to do
not renew his contract, notwithstanding his good performance
and the fact that he had been assured he would get a better
score than the previous year if his improvements continued. The
appellant's had legitimate expectations that his contract would
be converted into an indefinite duration one or at
least
prolonged.

The impugned decision and the context in which it was deliv-
ered are also not in compliance with the principle of proper
administration and duty of care, which every administration
must show in respect of its staff members.

It would have been in conformity with both the interest of the
the staff member to keep the appellant at
service and of
Europol. As a matter of fact, the work the appellant was in
charge of will continue to be performed. The appellant has
continuously showed during the years that he could perform it
well,
to the satisfaction of his colleagues and also people
external to Europol.

Applicant: Rainer Wenning (The Hague, Netherlands (represented
by: G. Vandersanden, C. Ronzi, lawyers)

The appellant has also been discriminated in comparison with
other colleagues which performed the same way he did and
obtained a prolongation of their contract.

Defendant: Europol

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

Eventually, the appellant asks compensation for the material and
moral prejudice that the impugned decision has caused to him.