You are on page 1of 2

8.1.

2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/41

The applicant claims that the Court should: The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the explicit rejection of 8 July 2004 of the applicant's — annul the Agency's decision awarding the applicant part
complaint, the decision not to draw up an evaluation report only of the differential allowance mentioned in Article 7(2)
for the period 2001-2002 and the authority's decision not of the Staff Regulations as a result of his being called upon
to include her in the number of officials promoted to Grade to occupy a temporary posting between 13 January 2003
C2 in the promotion year 2003; and 15 August 2004;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of — order the defendant to pay the balance of the differential
EUR 3 000 by way of compensation for her non-material allowance payable under Article 7(2) of the Staff Regula-
damage; tions;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs. — order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments


Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission, took sick leave in


October 2002. She has received an invalidity pension since The applicant in this case who, like the defendant's legal
September 2003. It was on that basis that the appointing adviser, was called upon to occupy temporarily the duties of
authority decided not to draw up a staff report for the appli- the Agency's head of administration, because the holder of that
cant for the period 2001-2002. She therefore received no merit post was absent on sick leave, challenges the appointing
or priority points for the promotion year 2003 and her name authority's decision to divide the amount of the differential
was not included in the list of officials promoted to Grade C2. 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
The applicant challenges the decisions at issue, pleading infrin- of administration and that, in consequence, he was entitled to
gement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of the the whole of the differential allowance in dispute.
general provisions implementing that article (decision of the
Commission of 26 April 2002) and of the principles of equal
treatment and proper administration. In that context, the appli- In support of his claims, the applicant alleges infringement of
cant claims that the Commission was not entitled, at the end of Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations, and breach of the princi-
2002 or at the beginning of 2003, to regard the applicant as ples of correspondence between the grade and the post, of
an official less than a year away from retirement for whom non-discrimination and of proportionality.
there was no reason to draw up a staff report. Challenging the
decision not to promote her to Grade C2, the applicant alleges
breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the princi- He also considers that the duty to state the reasons on which
ples of equal treatment and proper administration. an act is based was not complied with in the circumstances.

Action brought on 11 October 2004 by José Antonio Action brought on 22 October 2004 by Walter Parlante
Carreira against the European Agency for Safety and against the Commission of the European Communities
Health at Work

(Case T-432/04)
(Case T-421/04)

(2005/C 6/81)
(2005/C 6/80)

(Language of the case: French) (Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Agency for Safety and Health An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
at Work was brought before the Court of First Instance of the nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 October 2004 by José Antonio European Communities on 22 October 2004, by Walter
Carreira, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vander- Parlante, residing in Enghien (Belgium), represented by L.
sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers. Vogel, lawyer.
C 6/42 EN Official Journal of the European Union 8.1.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should: The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Appointing Authority's decision adopted on 5 — Annul the Appointing Authority's decision adopted on 2
July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint dated 26 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint dated 1 March
February 2004, by which he challenged the decision 2004, by which she challenged the decision refusing to
refusing to promote him from Grade C2 to Grade C1, for promote her from Grade C3 to Grade C2, for the 2003
the 2003 promotion procedure; promotion procedure;

— If, and in so far as necessary, annul also the Appointing


Authority's original decision in December 2003 refusing to — If, and in so far as necessary, annul also the Appointing
promote the applicant from Grade C2 to Grade C1, for the Authority's original decision in December 2003 refusing to
2003 promotion procedure; promote the applicant from Grade C3 to Grade C2, for the
2003 promotion procedure;
— Order the Defendant to pay the costs.
— Order the Defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments


In support of his action, the applicant relies on infringement of
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principle of
non-discrimination and manifest error of assessment. The appli-
cant submits that the new promotion procedure does not The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in
provide a proper fair examination of officials' individual merits Case T-432/04.
since the examination is made only by comparison with the
other officials of the same Directorate-General.

The applicant also alleges that Article 12 of the General Provi-


sions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations infringes
that Article and amounts to discrimination in that certain offi-
cials were, in the course of the 2003 promotion procedure,
awarded additional priority points on the sole ground that they Action brought on 22 October 2004 by Alex Milbert and
were proposed for promotion in 2002 without actually being Others against the Commission of the European Commu-
promoted. nities

The applicant also relies on breach of the principle of legiti-


mate expectations. (Case T-434/04)

(2005/C 6/83)

Action brought on 22 October 2004 by Angela Davi (Language of the case: French)
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-433/04)

(2005/C 6/82) An action against the Commission of the European Commu-


nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 October 2004, by Alex Milbert,
(Language of the case: French) residing in Hesperange (Luxembourg), Imre Czigàny, residing in
Rhode St. Genèse (Belgium), José Manuel De la Cruz González,
residing in Brussels, Viviane Deveen, residing in Overijse
(Belgium), Mohammad Reza Fardoom, residing in Roodt-sur-
Syre (Luxembourg), Laura Gnemmi, residing in Hünsdorf
An action against the Commission of the European Commu- (Luxembourg), Marie-José Reinard, residing in Bertrange
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the (Luxembourg), Vassilios Stergiou, residing in Kraainem
European Communities on 22 October 2004, by Angela Davi, (Belgium) and Ioannis Terezakis, residing in Brussels, repre-
residing in Brussels, represented by L. Vogel, lawyer. sented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers.