You are on page 1of 2

C 326/86 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.12.

2006

2) The applicant submits that the contested decision should be Pleas in law and main arguments
annulled because it breaches the principle of non-discrimina-
tion. First, she raises a plea of illegality of the second indent
of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. She The applicant, after having worked at the Commission for
argues that this provision unduly makes a difference several years as a member of temporary staff in Grade A5, then
between, on the one hand, officials who performed, in the A*11, was successful in open competition EPSO/A/18/04 to
same Member State in which they were recruited by a Euro- draw up a reserve list for administrators in career bracket A7/
pean institution, duties in the service of another State or of A6. As a result, he was appointed as an official in the same post
an international organisation and, on the other hand, offi- he had occupied as a member of the temporary staff and classi-
cials, such as the applicant, whose situations are also charac- fied in Grade A*6, step 2, in accordance with Annex XIII of the
terised by a lack of lasting ties with the Member State they Staff Regulations.
used to work in before being recruited by a European institu-
tion. Second, the applicant claims that the Commission
applied the abovementioned provision in a discriminatory In support of his action, the applicant invokes infringement of
manner, in so far as it did not take into account the personal Articles 31 and 62 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 5 and 2
circumstances of the applicant demonstrating that she had of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.
not intended to establish lasting ties in Belgium.
The applicant moreover submits infringement of the principle
of the protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of the
protection of acquired rights and the principle of equal treat-
ment.

Action brought on 13 November 2006 — Sotgia v


Commission

(Case F-130/06) Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Steinmetz v


Commission

(2006/C 326/173)
(Case F-131/06)

Language of the case: French (2006/C 326/174)

Language of the case: French

Parties
Parties

Applicant: Stefano Sotgia (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: T. Applicant: Robert Steinmetz (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (repre-
Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers) sented by: J. Choucroun, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities


Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the applicant

Form of order sought


— annul the Commission's decision of 21 February 2006 not
to give full effect to an agreement binding on the parties;
— annul the individual decision concerning a transfer from
— order the Commission to pay the applicant token compensa-
temporary staff status to official status taking effect on 16
tion of EUR 1 for the non-material damage suffered as a
April 2006, notified on 2 May 2006;
result of the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs. — order the defendant to pay the costs.
30.12.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 326/87

Pleas in law and main arguments by virtue of retroactive application of the United Kingdom
weighting to the applicant's pension with effect from 1
April 2004;
The applicant concluded an agreement with the Commission
intended to bring to an end by amicable settlement the dispute — order the defendant to pay the costs.
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-155/05 (1).

Pleas in law and main arguments


The applicant alleges that the Commission failed to give full
effect to the terms of the agreement.
In support of his application, the applicant argues, first, that the
contested decision is contrary to the principle of the obligation
In support of his action, he alleges in particular breach by the to state reasons, in so far as it is framed in terms so vague that
Commission of the principle of legality, the principle of pacta it is not possible to understand the underlying reasoning.
sunt servanda, the principle of the protection of legitimate expec-
tations, the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and
the principle of sound administration. The applicant additionally invokes infringement of Article 82 of
the former Staff Regulations and Article 20 of Annex XIII to the
new Staff Regulations; a manifest error of assessment of the
(1) OJ C 155, 25.06.2006, p. 26. facts giving rise to an error in law; breach of the principle of
proportionality; and failure to respect the right to privacy.

Lastly, the applicant submits that the Commission was in breach


of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the
principle of sound administration.

Action brought on 29 November 2006 — Bordini v


Commission

(Case F-134/06)

Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Lafleur-Tighe v


(2006/C 326/175) Commission

Language of the case: French (Case F-135/06)

(2006/C 326/176)

Parties Language of the case: French

Applicant: Giovanni Bordini (Dover, United Kingdom) (repre-


sented by: L. Levi, C. Ronzi and I. Perego, lawyers)
Parties
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Applicant: Virgine Lafleur-Tighe (Makati, Philippines) (represented
by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Forms of order sought


Defendant: Commission

— annul the decision of 25 January 2006 by which the


appointing authority refused to recognise that the applicant
was resident in the United Kingdom and, in consequence, Form of order sought
refused to apply the weighting for the United Kingdom to
his pension;
— annul the decision of the appointing authority placing the
— order the defendant to pay interest — on the basis of a rate applicant in grade 13, step 1, on the date of her recruitment
two points higher than the rate fixed by the European as a contractual agent, in so far as that decision is to be
Central Bank, and applicable during the period concerned, inferred from the contract of employment signed on
for major refinancing operations — on the amounts payable 22 December 2005;