CELEX: C2006/108/56
Language: en
Date: 2006-05-06 00:00:00
Title: Case F-19/06: Action brought on  20 February 2006  — Semeraro v Commission

6.5.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 108/30
            
         Action brought on 20 February 2006 — Semeraro v Commission
   (Case F-19/06)
   (2006/C 108/56)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Maria Magdalena Semeraro ((Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L.Vogel, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 8 November 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint of 12 August 2005 against the career development report (‘CDR’) given to her for 2004;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in so far as necessary, annul also that report;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official of the Commission promoted to Grade C*6 on 30 November 2004, was awarded, in the context of the assessment exercise for 2004, a number of merit points that was very much lower than in previous years.
   Since her complaint on that subject had been rejected, the applicant brought the present action in which she puts forward three pleas.
   The first plea alleges a breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and Article 9(7) of the general provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant claims, in particular, that the appeal assessor simply maintained the CDR as it was, without answering the objections and observations of the Joint Appraisal Committee with facts specific to the individual case.
   The second plea alleges a breach of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, of Article 1(2) of the general implementing provisions, of the principle of proportionality and of the principle of non-discrimination, and a manifest error of assessment. First, the reduction in the merit points in respect of the 2004 exercise does not accord with the fact that the analytical assessments provided have remained the same as for previous exercises. Second, the justification put forward by the administration, that the reduction is explained by the fact of the applicant's promotion at the end of 2004, is of no relevance.
   The third plea alleges a breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, of Article 10(3) of Annex XIII thereto, and of Article 9(7) of the general implementing provisions, and a manifest error of assessment. In particular, the appraiser, the counter-signing officer and the appeal assessor did not provide sufficient reasons when giving a negative answer to the question of the applicant's suitability to assume category B* duties.