CELEX: 62017TN0319
Language: en
Date: 2017-05-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-319/17: Action brought on 22 May 2017 –Aldridge and Others v Commission

31.7.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 249/33
            
         Action brought on 22 May 2017 –Aldridge and Others v Commission
   (Case T-319/17)
   (2017/C 249/49)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Adam Aldridge (Schaerbeek, Belgium) and 32 other applicants (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the present action admissible and well founded;
            
         and consequently:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of 15 July 2016 rejecting the request for reclassification of 16 March 2016;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of 13 February 2017 rejecting the complaint of 14 October 2016;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order payment of compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm incurred by the applicants;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, based on a plea of illegality directed against the decision of the Director of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 16 October 2012 to implement only a one-off reclassification for temporary agents with contracts of indeterminate duration.
               The applicants consider that that decision is unlawful in that its adoption infringed Articles 10(3) and 15 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘CEOS’), contrary to the hierarchy of norms and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. Thus, the decision of the Director of OLAF of 15 July 2016 rejecting the request for reclassification of 16 March 2016 and that of 13 February 2017 rejecting the complaint of 14 October 2016 (‘the contested decisions’) were, they submit, adopted on the basis of an unlawful decision and should therefore be annulled.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, principally in that the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union of 2014 and the provisions restricting career development prospects beyond grades AD 12 and AST 9 are not a valid reason to exclude those temporary agents from the organisation of reclassification procedures.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, inasmuch as the contested decisions are contrary to a Commission decision, addressed to the European Union agencies, providing for the participation of temporary agents in reclassification procedures. Thus, temporary agents of the Commission’s Joint Research Centre (‘JRC’) having contracts of indeterminate duration benefit from a system of annual reclassification, which the applicants claim constitutes an unjustified difference in treatment.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, in particular in that the restriction to a single reclassification during a career does not amount to a measure addressing the objective described in the decision of 16 October 2016 to meet the specific expertise needs of OLAF, but is, on the contrary, rather such as to prevent OLAF from keeping temporary agents in its employment over long periods.