CELEX: C2007/095/115
Language: en
Date: 2007-04-28 00:00:00
Title: Case F-12/07: Action brought on 26 February 2007 — O'Connor v Commission

28.4.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 95/57
            
         Action brought on 26 February 2007 — O'Connor v Commission
   (Case F-12/07)
   (2007/C 95/115)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Elizabeth O'Connor (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
   
               —
            
            
               annul the Commission's decision to set at 11 months and 25 days the maximum period for the award of an unemployment allowance to the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a former member of the Commission's temporary staff, worked for the latter continuously from 16 January 2001 to 31 December 2005 under six different fixed-term contracts concluded in the following order: a first contract as a member of the temporary staff, a first contract as a member of the auxiliary staff, a second contract as a member of the temporary staff, a second contract as a member of the auxiliary staff, a third contract as a member of the temporary staff and, finally, a contract as a member of the contract staff.
   The administration granted her entitlement to the unemployment allowance for a maximum period of 11 months and 25 days, in so far as it held that the periods covered by the auxiliary staff contracts should be treated as periods spent in the service of an employer other than the Community institutions.
   In support of her action, the applicant submits, first, that the Commission committed an abuse of rights by retaining her in its service more than five years under a variety of fixed-term contracts and under different sets of staff regulations. Secondly, she submits that the Commission misapplied Article 28a(4) and Article 96(4) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, in so far as the period during which the applicant worked as a member of the auxiliary staff was not taken into account for the purposes of their provisions.