Action brought on 28 September 2007 - Kerstens v Commission

(Case F-102/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Petrus J.F. Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: M.C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 23 November 2005 awarding the applicant three directorate-general priority points (PMO) (PPDG) under the 2004 promotion exercise as published in Administrative Notices 85/2005 of 23 November 2005;

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 23 November 2005 awarding the applicant zero directorate-general priority points (PMO) (PPDG) under the 2005 promotion exercise as published in Administrative Notices 85/2005 of 23 November 2005;

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 17 November 2006 awarding the applicant zero directorate-general priority points (PMO) (PPDG) under the 2006 promotion exercise as published in Administrative Notices 55/2006;

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 17 November 2006 awarding the applicant zero priority points for activities in the interest of the institution (PPII) under the 2006 promotion exercise as published in Administrative Notices 55/2006;

annul the express decision of the appointing authority of 15 June 2007 giving a negative response to the applicant's complaints R/142/07 and R/183/07, dated 16 and 22 February 2007 respectively;

take formal note that the applicant reserves, in that context, the right to rely on the existence of a misuse of powers and infringement of the rules for disciplinary procedures and to claim damages from the Commission of the European Communities;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant, an official in Grade A*12, relies on five pleas in law, the first of which alleges breach of the principle that the quota of priority points should be used up arising from Article 5 of the of the General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations (GIP 45) and a manifest error of assessment concerning the grant of priority points awarded by the Director General (PPDG) under the 2004 promotion exercise.

The second plea in law alleges breach of Articles 4 to 6 of GIP 45 and a manifest error of appreciation concerning the award of PPDG for 2005 and 2006.

The third plea in law alleges infringement of Article 9 of GIP 45 consisting of a manifest error of assessment concerning the grant of priority points in recognition of work carried out in the interests of the institution (PPII). In the alternative, the third plea in law alleges a breach of the principles of non-retroactivity and legal certainty.

The fourth plea in law alleges breach of the principle of equal treatment concerning the grant of PPDG for 2004, 2005 and 2006 and PPII for 2006.

The fifth plea in law alleges a breach of the duty to state reasons concerning the award of PPDG for 2004, 2005 and 2006.

Finally, the applicant reserves the right to rely on the existence of a misuse of powers and breach of the rules for disciplinary procedures and to claim damages from the Commission.

____________