CELEX: C2007/283/83
Language: en
Date: 2007-11-24 00:00:00
Title: Case F-104/07: Action brought on 8 October 2007 — Hoppenbrouwers v Commission

24.11.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 283/46
            
         Action brought on 8 October 2007 — Hoppenbrouwers v Commission
   (Case F-104/07)
   (2007/C 283/83)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Micheline Hoppenbrouwers (Dilbeek, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment of 25 June 2007 rejecting the applicant's complaint of 16 March 2007 against the administrative decision notified on 18 December 2006 refusing to employ the applicant as a member of the contract staff under Article 2(1) of the Annex to the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS);
            
         
               —
            
            
               Insofar as is necessary, annul also the said decision of 18 December 2006;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The first plea in law in the action is derived from the infringement of Article 82(3)(d) of the CEOS, Article 83 of the CEOS, Article 33 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and Article 2(1) of the Annex to the CEOS as well as from a manifest error of assessment.
   The applicant states, first, that the administration refused to offer her a contract as a member of the contract staff for an indefinite period because she was in a state of temporarily unfitness to work on 1 May 2005, the date which, according to the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment, was the final date for contracts for members of the contract staff to take effect under the transitional measures provided for by Article 2(1) of the Annex to the CEOS. The applicant submits that only a permanent unfitness to work could justify the rejection of her candidature.
   The second plea in law in the action is derived from an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, inasmuch as the applicant was, without legitimate or reasonable justification, unfairly disadvantaged in comparison with other persons who, having worked, like the applicant, in nurseries and after-school childcare pursuant to a contract governed by Belgian law, benefited from a contract as a member of the contract staff for an indefinite period.