CELEX: C2006/154/57
Language: en
Date: 2006-07-01 00:00:00
Title: Case F-34/06: Action brought on  3 February 2006  — Michail v Commission

1.7.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 154/24
            
         Action brought on 3 February 2006 — Michail v Commission
   (Case F-34/06)
   (2006/C 154/57)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Christos Michail (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Meïdanis, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the applicant's Career Development Report (CDR) for the year 2004, as established by the SYSPER2 system in which it is included;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 4 November 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaints;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, amounting to EUR 120 000;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Make an appropriate order as to costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official in Grade A*12, challenges the validity of the CDR which the defendant established for him for the year 2004. In support of his action, he submits, first, that that CDR assesses and includes a statement of reasons only for the period from 1 May 2004 to 31 December 2004 inclusive, while the first four months of that year were not taken into account, even by means of a reference to the mark in the interim note specifically covering that period. That omission constitutes an infringement of Article 4(3) of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant adds that, in any event, the interim note was drawn up by an authority without the power to do so.
   Next, the applicant claims that in the second part of 2004 his superiors only entrusted him with tasks of a circumstantial or ancillary nature which were of no use for the purpose of drawing up a CDR for an official of his grade.
   The applicant alleges, lastly, infringement of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations on psychological harassment.