CELEX: C2006/212/85
Language: en
Date: 2006-09-02 00:00:00
Title: Case F-68/06: Action brought on 22 June 2006 — Bakema v Commission

2.9.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 212/48
            
         Action brought on 22 June 2006 — Bakema v Commission
   (Case F-68/06)
   (2006/C 212/85)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Reint Jacob Bakema (Zuidlaren, the Netherlands) (represented by: L. Rijpkema, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment (AACC) dated 22 March 2006;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the AACC to engage the applicant in function group IV, grade 16;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Declare that the applicant must be granted an adequate sum by way of damages.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a former member of the so-called local technical assistance staff (ALAT), has been engaged as a member of the contract staff and classified in function group IV, grade 14.
   In his action, the applicant claims that the defendant made inaccurate application of the relevant legislation, especially of Article 82 (2) (c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities (CEOS) and Article 2 of General Implementation Provisions (GIP) 49-2004. The applicant submits that the defendant's interpretation of the term ‘diploma’ contained in those articles is inaccurate and arbitrary. In the calculation of his professional experience, the defendant should have taken into consideration all the activities the applicant carried out after obtaining his ‘kandidaatsdiploma’.
   The applicant further claims that, even if he used to be a member of ALAT before his engagement as a member of contract staff, the principle laid down in Article 86 of the CEOS should be applied to his case. According to that principle, where an agent moves to a new post within a function group, he shall not be classified in a lower grade or step than in his former post.