CELEX: 62005TN0288
Language: en
Date: 2005-07-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-288/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by Harald Mische against the Commission of the European Communities

17.9.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 229/35
            
         Action brought on 20 July 2005 by Harald Mische against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-288/05)
   (2005/C 229/75)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 2005 by Harald Mische, resident in Brussels (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               grant the cancellation of the grading given in the recruitment decision dated 11 November 2004 of the Appointing Authority to grade the applicant on his recruitment to DG Competition as junior lawyer at grade A*6, step 2, implying the reinstatement of all his rights as deriving from a legal and regular employment, i.e. a legal and regular grading as of 16 November 2004, which means at minimum an A7/3 grading (valid as of 1 November 2003) or its equivalent according to Articles 1-11 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulation (A*8/3);
            
         
               —
            
            
               grant the award of damages ‘intérêts de retard’, compensation for his prejudice to his career, and other damages in form of a legal and regular pay, notably the application of the transitional provision contained in Article 21 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulation in force as of 1 May 2004 or, alternatively, the lowering of contributions to the pension scheme based on the principle of equal pay. These rights will have to be duly evaluated at a later stage and are now evaluated, provisionally and ex aequo et bono, at a minimum of EUR 10 000 per year;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order that the Commission pays all the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant participated in competition PE/96/A published on 23 May 2002. He succeeded the competition and was put on the reserve list on 27 May 2004. During this period, the applicant had started working for the Commission, first as temporary agent in grade A7, then as auxiliary agent in grade B. Following the competition, the applicant was recruited by the European Parliament with effect from 16 November 2004 and transferred to the Commission. The applicant was then graded in grade A*6.
   The applicant states that he seeks equal treatment compared to officials recruited between June 2003 and end of April 2004. In support of his application, the applicant invokes the illegality of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the revised Staff Regulations. According to the applicant, that article violates the principle of equal treatment and of non discrimination, Article 31 of the revised Staff Regulations, Article 5 of the revised Staff Regulations together with the principle of equal treatment and non discrimination, the principle of equivalence of position and grades, Article 7 (1) of the Staff Regulations and Annex IA to the Staff Regulations, as well as, finally, the principle of legal certainty, the principle of non retroactivity and the applicant's acquired rights and his legitimate expectation. The applicant furthermore submits that Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (1) infringes Article 10 of the Staff Regulations.
   The applicant also invokes a violation of the principle of good administration, the principle of due care, the principle of transparency, the principle of good faith and the principle of equal treatment and non discrimination.
   
      (1)  OJ L 124, p. 1