CELEX: C2006/261/74
Language: en
Date: 2006-10-28 00:00:00
Title: Case F-107/06: Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Berrisford v Commission

28.10.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 261/36
            
         Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Berrisford v Commission
   (Case F-107/06)
   (2006/C 261/74)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Michael Berrisford (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision not to include the applicant's name in the list of officials promoted from A*12 to A*13 in a ‘2005 promotion procedure’, and consequently not to promote the applicant, as published in Administrative Notice No 85-2005 of 23 November 2005, in so far as that decision was adopted although the applicant was wrongly awarded an insufficient number of priority points in that promotion procedure;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of 6 June 2006 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 21 February 2006 under No R/123/06, in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay, by way of compensation for the material and non-material damage and harm to the applicant's career, the sum of EUR 25 000, with interest at the rate of 7 % per annum from 21 February 2006, the date of the complaint;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in any event, order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward three pleas, the first of which alleges infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, infringement of the General provisions implementing that article (GIP), infringement of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, infringement of the duty to give reasons and manifest errors of assessment. In particular, the applicant alleges that, despite his excellent merit appraisals and the fact that he was twice included in the ‘ex A4 reserve’ (of candidates considered deserving of promotion in the previous year's procedure but not promoted), he was not awarded the three transitional points provided for in Article 12(2)(c) of the GIP, or the four additional special priority points or even the one supplementary priority point awarded by his Directorate General and requested in the action brought before the Joint Promotion Committee for grade A officials. The applicant also puts forward the fact that the promotion rate of 5 % for A*12 officials was not reached.
   The second plea is that the principles of equal opportunity, of equal treatment of staff and of non-discrimination were infringed. According to the applicant, both the content of the rules and their implementation in the light of the transitional decisions concerning officials in the grade A*12 ‘reserve’ are unfair and discriminatory in relation to the transitional measures adopted specifically for ‘reserve officials’ from other grades. In addition, he submits that there has been discrimination within grade A*12, because of the current existence within that grade of former A*11 officials promoted previously and who received in their rucksack four additional special ‘reserve’ points, in breach of the principles cited above.
   The third plea alleges infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of sound administration and the principle of the duty to have regard for the interests of officials. According to the applicant, despite the assurances given by the authorities, the applicant's status as an official twice included in the reserve and the earlier ‘second round’ system were not taken into account. In addition, in so far as the new promotion system was applied for the first time in 2005 with regard to officials of the applicant's grade, the applicant maintains that he was entitled to expect to be treated in the same way, in particular as regards the ‘reserve’, as officials of other grades, who benefited from transitional measures intended to alleviate the disadvantages caused by the transition from the old promotion system to the new.