Action brought on 16 October 2007 - Doumas v Commission

(Case F-112/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Georgios Doumas (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

annul the decision rejecting the applicant's request of 24 November 2006;

order the European Commission to pay the applicant the remuneration which he would have received from 1 November 2003 until 16 September 2007, the date of his effective reinstatement, as compensation for his material damage;

order the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 200 000, subject to increase or diminution in the course of the proceedings, for the damage which he is suffering in terms of delay in his career and for loss of the chance of making progress in his career (promotion, step, pension ...), and, in respect of non-material damage, particularly the damage to his state of health, because of the state of uncertainty as to the progress of his career for more than three years as a result of the Appointing Authority's ('the AIPN') wrongful acts or omissions;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official in step 3 of Grade A5, by e-mail of 1 August 2003, three months before the end of his leave on personal grounds ('CCP'), taken from 1 October 2002 until 31 October 2003, stated his wish not to apply for an extension to his CCP. On 24 November 2006, he requested the AIPN, first, to reinstate him in the first vacant post corresponding to his grade and, second, compensation for the loss which he was suffering because of his non-reinstatement as a result of the Commission's wrongful acts or omissions, such reinstatement in the function group of administrator being possible only from 16 September 2007.

In support of his action, the applicant pleads, among other things, breach of Article 40 of the Staff Regulations, of Article 4 et seq. of the Commission's decision of 5 September 1988, which applied to the end of his CCP, and of Article 8 of the Commission's new decision of 28 April 2004 on CCP which entered into force on 1 May 2004.

The applicant pleads, in addition, that the Commission's decision not to reinstate him is vitiated by a total failure to state reasons.

The applicant claims, in particular, that the repetition of those wrongful acts or omissions which are causing him significant damage constitutes psychological harassment within the meaning of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations.

The applicant submits finally that the Commission has infringed Article 40(4) of the Staff Regulations and the principle of sound administration.

____________