CELEX: C2006/237/40
Language: en
Date: 2006-09-30 00:00:00
Title: Case F-95/06: Action brought on 11 August 2006 — Taruffi v Commission

30.9.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 237/23
            
         Action brought on 11 August 2006 — Taruffi v Commission
   (Case F-95/06)
   (2006/C 237/40)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Adrien Taruffi (Schouweiler, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:
   
               —
            
            
               Declare illegal Article 4(1) of the General Implementing Provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by the Commission decision of 23 December 2004 (GIP);
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul the Commission decisions fixing the applicant's merit and priority points in respect of the 2004 and 2005 promotion exercises and the decisions not to include his name on the merit list after Promotion Committees and on the list of officials promoted to Grade B*10 in the 2004 promotion exercise;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his application, the applicant argues that there was no genuine examination of his merits in the appraisal carried out by the Promotion Committee, following the administration's positive response to his first complaint.
   As regards the 2004 exercise, the applicant pleads, inter alia, that there was a manifest error of assessment in that his merits in the 2004 exercise were compared to those of the officials covered by the ‘research’ budget whereas, for that exercise, he was covered by the ‘operations’ budget.
   As regards the 2005 exercise, the applicant regards as illegal the Commission's interpretation of Article 4(1) of the GIP, under which, even though the applicant had been assigned to two separate Directorates-General and an interim report had been drawn up for the first part of 2004 including the award of merit points, only the Directorate-General responsible for establishing his final report would have the power to award priority points.
   In general, the applicant submits that the contested decisions were adopted in breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and that length of service, rather than merit, was taken into account as the decisive criterion.