CELEX: C2005/281/55
Language: en
Date: 2005-11-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-334/05: Action brought on 29 August 2005 — Wineke Neirinck v Commission

12.11.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 281/29
            
         Action brought on 29 August 2005 — Wineke Neirinck v Commission
   (Case T-334/05)
   (2005/C 281/55)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant(s): Wineke Neirinck (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)
   
      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the implied decision rejecting her claim for damages and, so far as may be necessary, the express decision rejecting her complaint;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Award damages for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss sustained by her following the breach of the Commission's promise to recruit her to the Investigatory and Disciplinary Office (IDOC) with effect from 1 May 2004 at the latest, that amount being fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 576 593,20;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant first of all worked in the Commission as a seconded national expert from 1 May 1998 to 30 April 2001, then as a member of the temporary staff under a contract which expired on 30 April 2004.
   From October 2003 the applicant took steps to obtain a new contract as a member of the temporary staff with effect from 1 May 2004. She claims that she was offered a post in the Investigatory and Disciplinary Office but that finally she was not recruited by reason of fault on the part of the Commission's staff. She alleges that DG ADMIN refused to recruit her on the basis that she had already served the maximum period of six years. According to the applicant that interpretation is erroneous as her first three years in the Commission as a seconded national expert should not have been taken into account. She submits that the administration finally admitted its error but, in the meantime, the post which had been offered to her had already disappeared as a result of restructuring.
   By her action, the applicant seeks compensation for the damage she allegedly suffered. She alleges a breach of the general principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, good faith, the duty to state reasons, transparency, ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti legem’, sound administration, the right to be heard, the duty to have regard to the interests of the official and the interests of the service.