Case F-125/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 November 2007 — Deffaa v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Transfer — Post of Director-General — Grading — Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations — Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations — Second paragraph of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations — Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations — Management premium)
Date: 2007-12-22
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, personnel administration, professional career, promotion, regulations for civil servants

22.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/45

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber)
of 8 November 2007 — Deffaa v Commission

Action brought on 5 October 2007 — Duta v Court of
Justice

(Case F-125/06) (1)

(Staff case — Officials — Reform of the Staff Regulations
— Transfer — Post of Director-General — Grading —
Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations — Article 29(1) of the
Staff Regulations — Second paragraph of Article 44 of the
Staff Regulations — Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations
— Management premium)

(2007/C 315/87)

Language of the case: French

(Case F-103/07)

(2007/C 315/88)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Radu Duta (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented
by: F. Krieg, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities

Parties

Applicant: Walter Deffaa (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S.
Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Form of order sought

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the President of the Commission
of 12 January 2006 promoting the applicant to the post of
Director-General, in so far as it grades him in step 4 of Grade
A*15, with effect from 1 August 2004.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the parties to pay their own costs.

(1) OJ C 310, 16.12.2006, p. 32.

— annul the contested decisions;

— refer the case back to the competent authority;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By his action, the applicant challenges the rejection of his candi-
dature for a post of Legal Secretary to a judge of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities. The rejection took
place by circular letter of 24 January 2007, although the judge
in question had previously shown a lively interest in the appli-
cant's candidature.

Instance with power

to determine complaints’

The applicant pleads, first, the nullity of the decision to reject
his complaint. It was dealt with by the ‘Committee of the Court
of First
the
composition of which does not meet the requirements for a fair
hearing as defined by Article 6(1) of the European Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The members of
the Court of First Instance sitting as that
committee cannot determine with complete impartiality cases
concerning one of their colleagues.

Secondly, the applicant pleads that he was the victim of discri-
mination. The judge in question did not exercise his or her
discretion reasonably.