CELEX: C2005/093/70
Language: en
Date: 2005-04-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-58/05: Action brought on 3 February 2005 by Isabel Clara Centeno Mediavilla and Others against Commission of the European Communities

16.4.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 93/38
            
         Action brought on 3 February 2005 by Isabel Clara Centeno Mediavilla and Others against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-58/05)
   (2005/C 93/70)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 3 February 2004 by Isabel Clara Centeno Mediavilla, residing in Seville (Spain), and 16 others, represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the classification in grade granted to the applicants in their recruitment decisions, in so far as that classification is based on Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in consequence, reconstitute the applicants' careers (including recognition of their experience in grade thus amended, their rights to promotion and their pension entitlement) on the basis of the grade in which they should have been appointed as stated in the competition notice following which they were placed on the reserve recruitment list, either in the grade appearing in that competition notice, or, corresponding to its equivalent according to the classification in the new Staff Regulations (and the appropriate step in accordance with the rules applicable before 1 May 2004), on the basis of the decision appointing them;
            
         
               —
            
            
               award the applicants default interest, based on the rate fixed by the European Central Bank, on all the sums corresponding to the difference between the salary corresponding to their classification in the recruitment decision and the classification to which they should have been entitled up to the date of the decision properly classifying them in grade;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the entire costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants took part in competitions for recruitment as officials within the Commission and were place on the reserve recruitment list before 1 May 2004, the date on which 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) entered into force. The applicants were actually appointed after 1 May 2004 and were classified in grade and in step according to the transitional provisions of the new Staff Regulations, as set out in Article 12 of Annex XIII. The applicants state, first, that as a result they were classified in a lower grade than that set out in the competition notices and, second, that the new grades attributed to them no longer correspond to the former category A or B grades in which they were recruited.
   In support of their application, the applicants put forward, first of all, an objection of illegality in respect of Article 12 of Annex XIII. The applicants maintain that Article 12 of Annex XII to the new Staff Regulations fails to observe the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination in that candidates who were successful in the same competition were treated differently as regards their classification in grade, depending on whether they were recruited before 1 May 2004 or after that date.
   They further claim that Article 12 of Annex XIII breaches Article 31 of the new Staff Regulations. In their submission, the grade that must be conferred on an official who has been recruited is, in accordance with Article 31, the grade indicated in the notice of the competition to which he was admitted. The grade conferred on the applicants upon their recruitment is different from the grade mentioned in the competition notice.
   The applicants also contend that article 12 of Annex XIII breaches Article 5 of the new Staff Regulations, the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination and the principle of equivalence of post and grade. They claim that their posts were not reclassified according to the nature and level of the duties carried out from the aspect of each typical post and that, contrary to Article 5(5) of the new Staff Regulations, the applicants did not enjoy the same conditions of recruitment and career progression by comparison with the successful candidates in the same competition who were appointed before 1 May 2004.
   They also contend that Article 12 of Annex XIII infringes the principle lf legal certainty and the principle of non-retroactivity, the applicants' acquired rights and their legitimate expectation. They maintain that their rights in respect of their classification in grade came into existence when they appeared on the reserve recruitment list and that it is on the basis of that information that they may be assured that if they are appointed they will receive the classification in grade set out in the competition notice.
   The applicants claim, last, that, contrary to Article 10 of the new Staff Regulations, the Staff Committee was not consulted a second time when the Commission altered its initial proposal to amend the Staff Regulations and introduced the text the legality of which is disputed.
   In support of their action, the applicants also claim that there has been a breach of the principle of good administration, of the principle that an institution is to have regard for the welfare of its officials, of the principle of transparency, of the principle of legitimate expectations, of the principle of good faith, of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination and of the principle of equivalence of post and grade.
   
      (1)  OJ L 124, p. 1.