Action brought on 8 October 2007 - Daskalakis v Commission

(Case F-107/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Constantin Daskalakis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. A. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority dated 28 June 2007 to the extent that it does not award the management premium provided for in Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations for a period longer than one year;

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official called upon to occupy temporarily a post of Head of Unit, appeals the decision by which the Commission, when calculating his salary, refused to take into account the premium that he was granted as Head of Unit ad interim, on the ground that, according to Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations, this premium could be allowed only for one year, even if the Applicant was still acting as Head of Unit after that period had expired.

The Applicant claims that the time-limit provided for in the abovementioned provision refers only to the duration of the temporary posting and does not affect the remuneration corresponding to it, if the temporary posting is prolonged beyond the duration of one year. According to the Applicant, if the Administration is not able to fill the vacancy in one year, it cannot invoke its own failure against the officer occupying the post ad interim for a longer period.

The applicant alleges, in addition, infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of the officials and of the principle of good administration. The Commission should have taken into consideration not only the interests of the service but also those of the official concerned.

In a subsidiary manner, the Applicant stresses that he was nominated Head of Unit ad interim because the compulsory mobility plan obliged the holder of the post in question to switch to another post. For this reason, he alleges that its case should be covered by the last part of Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations, according to which the duration of a temporary posting can exceed one year, where, directly or indirectly, the posting is to replace an official who is seconded to another post in the interests of the service.

____________