Action brought on 16 March 2007 - Lafili v Commission

(Case F-22/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Paul Lafili (Genk, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annulment of the decision to classify the applicant in Grade AD 13, step 5, contained in a memorandum from DG ADMIN of 11 May 2006 and in the pay slip of June 2006 and in subsequent pay slips;

restoration of the applicant to Grade AD13, step 2 with effect from 1 May 2006, retaining a multiplication factor of 1.1172071;

complete reinstatement of the applicant's career with retrospective effect from 1 May 2006 to the date of his classification in the grade and step thus corrected (including the evaluation of his experience in the classification thus corrected, his entitlement to promotion and his pension rights), including interest for late payment based on the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations during the period in question, plus two percentage points, on the whole of the amount corresponding to the difference between the salary for the classification in the classification decision and the classification to which he should have been entitled until the date of the decision as to his proper classification;

an order that the defendant should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official, was classified in Grade A4, step 7, until the day before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations. On 1 May 2004, that classification was converted to Grade A*12, step 7, with a multiplication factor of 0.9442490 (in accordance with Article 2(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations). On 1 July 2004, the applicant moved to Grade A*12, step 8, with the same multiplication factor. On 22 July 2005, the applicant was promoted, with retrospective effect from 1 May 2004, to Grade A*13, step 1, with a multiplication factor of 1.1172071 (in accordance with Article 7(6) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations). With effect from 1 May 2006, he was classified in Grade AD13, step 5, with a multiplication factor of 1, pursuant to a decision of DG ADMIN of 11 May 2006.

In his action, the applicant claims that such a classification (i) breaches, inter alia, Articles 44 and 46 of the Staff Regulations and Article 7 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations; (ii) is vitiated by a lack of competence; (iii) breaches the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. In particular, according to the applicant, the Commission's interpretation of Article 7(7) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is incorrect in that it takes the view that, where a multiplication factor is higher than 1, the excess should be converted to seniority in step.

____________