CELEX: C2005/006/80
Language: en
Date: 2005-01-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-421/04: Action brought on 11 October 2004 by José Antonio Carreira against the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

8.1.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 6/41
            
         Action brought on 11 October 2004 by José Antonio Carreira against the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work
   (Case T-421/04)
   (2005/C 6/80)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 October 2004 by José Antonio Carreira, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the Agency's decision awarding the applicant part only of the differential allowance mentioned in Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations as a result of his being called upon to occupy a temporary posting between 13 January 2003 and 15 August 2004;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the balance of the differential allowance payable under Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay all the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in this case who, like the defendant's legal adviser, was called upon to occupy temporarily the duties of the Agency's head of administration, because the holder of that post was absent on sick leave, challenges the appointing authority's decision to divide the amount of the differential allowance between the two persons who filled the temporary posting. He responded to that decision by stating that he did not accept that he had worked part-time in replacing the head of administration and that, in consequence, he was entitled to the whole of the differential allowance in dispute.
   In support of his claims, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations, and breach of the principles of correspondence between the grade and the post, of non-discrimination and of proportionality.
   He also considers that the duty to state the reasons on which an act is based was not complied with in the circumstances.