Action brought on 30 May 2007 - Bui Van v Commission

(Case F-51/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Philippe Bui Van (Hettange Grande, France) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and R. Albelice, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 March 2007 not to accept the applicant's complaint;

annul the decision of the Director General of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of 4 October 2006 in so far as it reclassifies the applicant in Grade AST 3, Step 2, whereas he had initially been classified in Grade AST 4, Step 2;

state to the Appointing Authority the consequences of the annulment of the contested decisions and, in particular, classification in Grade AST 4, Step 2, the retroactive effect of appointment in Grade AST 4, Step 2, from the date the post was first taken up, the consequences in regard to different remuneration and default interest on the payment of the difference, as well as consequences in regard to promotion;

award the applicant the symbolic sum of one euro by way of compensation for his non-material loss;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a successful candidate in Open Competition EPSO/B/23/04 ¹ for the establishment of a reserve list for the recruitment of laboratory technicians in Grade B5/B4, was appointed as a probationary official after the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities ². An initial decision of 28 June 2006 classifying the applicant in Grade AST 4 was withdrawn and replaced by the contested decision classifying the applicant in Grade AST 3.

In support of his application, the applicant relies first on infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, in particular in so far as some of his colleagues, who had been similarly downgraded, were reclassified in Grade AST 4 at the end of the pre-litigation procedure.

Second, the applicant pleads a manifest error of assessment and breach of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations. The applicant submits, in particular, that the decision of 28 June 2006 was not withdrawn within a reasonable time.

____________

¹ - OJ C 81 A, 31.03.2004, p. 17.

² - OJ L 124, 27.04.2004, p. 1.