Action brought on 11 August 2006 - Michel Nolin v Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-89/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Michel Nolin (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

annul the decision and the formal intention of the Director-General of the Legal Service, based respectively on Article 13(3) and Article 5(7) of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by Commission Decision of 23 December 2004 not to allocate any Directorate-General priority points to the applicant for the "promotion exercise" (hereinafter "promotion year") 2005, as confirmed and made final by the decision of the Director-General of Personnel and Administration, taken pursuant to Article 10(2) of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, and rejecting the internal appeal filed on 26 September 2005;

annul the decision of the Director-General of Personnel and Administration, taken pursuant to Article 10(2) of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations not to allocate to the applicant any special priority points in recognition of work undertaken in the interest of the institution, for the promotion year 2005;

annul the list of officials to whom priority points in recognition of work undertaken in the interest of the institution were awarded, the merit list of officials of grade A*12 in the 2005 promotion year, and the list of officials promoted to grade A*13 in that year;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant first points out that in applying the General Provisions for Implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in the 2005 promotion exercise the Commission infringed the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations, to the extent that those provisions were adopted at the end of December 2004.

Furthermore, the applicant submits that the decision not to allocate to him any Directorate-General priority points, when he had obtained the highest mark of any official in his grade and in his department for the period from July 2001 to December 2003, infringes Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, and the General Provisions for Implementing that Article, which require merit to be the determining factor for the awarding of such points, and constitutes a manifest error of assessment. Moreover, the applicant states that, to the extent that the Directorate-General priority points were not allocated on the basis of merit, the Commission has misused its powers.

Next, the applicant claims that the decision not to allocate to him any priority points in recognition of work undertaken in the interest of the institution is illegal, in light of the fact that his application for membership of the selection board was successful. There was therefore an infringement of Article 5 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equal treatment.

Finally, according to the applicant, the lists cited in the third indent (above) must also be annulled, first, because of the defects of the contested decisions, and, second, because of the illegality of certain articles of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant states that:

-    by providing for the awarding of priority points in recognition of work undertaken in the interest of the institution for certain supplementary tasks which are already taken into account during the marking and awarding of Directorate-General priority points, Article 9 of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations infringes Article 45 of those Regulations as well as the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects, and the principle of equal treatment;

-    in providing for the award of transitional priority points based only on seniority within a grade during the 2005 promotion year, Article 13(3) of the Rules for Implementing Article 45 infringes Article 9 of the Staff Regulations;

-    in providing for more favourable treatment for officials of Directorates-General or services that have fewer staff, including the staff of the Private Offices of Members of the Commission, Article 6(2) of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations infringes Article 45 of those Regulations as well as the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects, and the principle of equal treatment.

____________