Language of document :

Action brought on 17 March 2006 - De la Cruz and Others v European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

(Case F-32/06)

Language of the case: English


Applicants: María del Carmen De la Cruz (Galdakao, Spain) and Others (represented by: G. Vandersanden et L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant(s): European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Annul the grading given in the 28 April 2005 contract of employment which was to take effect on 1 May 2005 to classify the applicants at group II, implying the reinstatement of all the applicants' rights as deriving from a legal and regular employment, i.e. group III, as from 1 May 2005.

Award the applicants: i) damages in form of a legal and regular pay in so included all derived financial rights (including pension). In that respect, the monthly difference of basic salary between a classification in group II and a classification in group III has been evaluated to EUR 536.89 for Mrs De la Cruz, Mrs Estrataetxe, Mrs Grados and Mr Moral and to EUR 474.57 for Mr Sánchez; ii) the interest for delay (intérêts de retard) on the above mentioned damages running as from 1 May 2005 until their full payment; iii) compensation for their prejudice to their career; iv) EUR 1 for each applicant to compensate their moral prejudice.

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants were recruited as contract staff according to Article 3a of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities (CEOS) and classified in function group II. In their action, the applicants submit that, as they are performing some of their tasks with a clear level of liability and independency, they should have been classified in function group III.

In their first plea, the applicants invoke mainly a violation of Article 80 of the CEOS, of Article 2 of the Annex to the CEOS, of the General implementing provision on the procedure governing the engagement and the use of contract staff at the Commission, of the principle of good administration and a manifest error of appreciation.

In their second plea, they argue that their classification was not fixed with regard to their duties and responsibilities and to the situation of their colleagues working in other agencies and institutions. For that reason, they allege a violation of the principles of equal treatment and non discrimination as well as of the principle of equivalence of positions and grades.

In their third plea, the applicants argue that the Staff Committee has not been properly consulted on the draft job descriptions and the Agency's draft guidelines on the classification of contract staff.

Finally, the applicants invoke a violation of the duty to have regard for the interests of officials laid down in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.