CELEX: C2006/060/104
Language: en
Date: 2006-03-11 00:00:00
Title: Case F-129/05: Action brought on  23 December 2005  — Merglova v Commission

11.3.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 60/56
            
         Action brought on 23 December 2005 — Merglova v Commission
   (Case F-129/05)
   (2006/C 60/104)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Eva Merglova (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Declare the action admissible;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul the Commission's decision of 15 September 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Pronounce the reclassification of the applicant in Grade C3 or C2, with retrospective effect from 1 May 2004;
            
         
               —
            
            
               In the alternative, order the Commission to recognise the applicant as eligible for promotion to Grade C3 or C2 in the next promotions year and order the Commission to make compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant through not having been classed in Grade C2 or C3 as from 1 May 2004;
            
         
               —
            
            
               In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Commission official recruited after the reform of the Staff Regulations but entered on the reserve list of a competition published before that reform, pleads unlawfulness of Article 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, pursuant to which she was classed in Grade C1, Step 2.
   In support of her objection of illegality, the applicant claims infringement of the principle of equivalence between the old and the new career structure, laid down by Article 6 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant argues that her career has been slowed by her being classed in Grade C1.
   The applicant also considers that she has been the victim of an infringement of the principle of equal treatment in relation to her colleagues in Grade C4 or C5 who were promoted before 1 May 2004.
   Finally, the applicant argues infringement of the legitimate expectation she was given that the new career structure would not involve deterioration of her working conditions, infringement of her acquired rights, and misuse of powers.