Action brought on 23 May 2007 - R v Commission
(Case F-49/07)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: R (represented by: O. Martins, lawyer)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
declare the application admissible;
in so far as is necessary, order the annulment of the Commission's decision of 13 February 2007 dismissing the Applicant's complaint and claim for damages for loss suffered of 8 November 2006 and the decision of 19 December 2005;
in so far as is necessary, declare the official's entire probationary period and all the measures produced in that connection void and/or order the annulment of all the preparatory and secondary measures or those which seek to extend the effect of the official's end of probationary period report of 10 January 2005 and, in particular, the so-called intermediate report of 11 August 2004, Ms X's memorandum of 13 April 2005 and Appointing Authority's act of reassignment of 3 March 2005;
in so far as is necessary, order the partial annulment of the end of probationary period report of 10 January 2005 for a member of the temporary 'Research' staff, finalised on 18 May 2004, relating to the comments introduced by the countersigning officer;
in so far as is necessary, order the annulment of Director General DG ADMIN's memorandum of 20 July 2005 dismissing the applicant's request for assistance, pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, of 11 November 2004;
hold the European Community liable by virtue of all of the contested decisions and measures and the Commission's unlawful conduct towards the applicant;
grant the applicant, in any event, damages for loss suffered in the amount of EUR 2 500 000;
order the Commission to pay the costs;
in so far as is necessary, call on the Commission to take part in conciliation proceedings under Article 7(4) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Commission was guilty of unlawful acts, omissions and failures in the management of personnel amounting to unlawful conduct towards the applicant such as to render that institution liable. According to the applicant, the Commission misused its powers and breached numerous essential procedural requirements, the rights of the defence and the duty to state reasons. Moreover, the contested acts are vitiated by manifest errors of assessment and infringe Article 26 of the Staff Regulations and Regulation No 45/2001,
1 the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, the duty to assist laid down by Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, the principles of reasonable career prospects and sound administration. Furthermore, the applicant was a victim of psychological harassment.