Appeal brought on 20 September 2010 by Christian Kurrer against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 July 2010 in Case F-139/06, Kurrer v Commission

(Case T-441/10 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Christian Kurrer (Watermael-Boitsfort, Belgium) (represented by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Forms of order sought by the appellant

Annulment of the judgment in Case F-139/06 Kurrer v Commission;

Annulment of the decision of 27 March 2006 in so far as it classifies the applicant as a probationary official in grade A* 6, step 2;

In the alternative, reference of the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for judgment;

Costs against the Commission, including those of the procedure at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In this appeal, the appellant seeks the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 8 July 2010 in Case F-139/06 Kurrer v Commission, dismissing the application in which the appellant, formerly a member of the temporary staff classified in grade A* 8, had sought the annulment of the decision whereby the Commission: (i) appointed the appellant, following an open competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of the European Union, as a probationary official, in so far as that decision classified him in grade A* 6, step 2, pursuant to the rules of the new Staff Regulations; and (ii) did not maintain his promotion points.

In support of his appeal, the appellant argues that, on a proper interpretation of Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, all members of the temporary staff having passed an internal or open competition should keep their grade on classification as titular officials, whereas the CST held that that benefit should be reserved for members of the temporary staff moving to a higher category at the time of their establishment.

The appellant makes four pleas in law, claiming:

lack of reasoning and error of law, the CST having ruled only very marginally on discrimination between members of the temporary staff recruited by the European Commission and those recruited by the European Parliament and the Court of Auditors of the European Union, the latter having, at the time of their classification, kept their grade and seniority irrespective of the classification laid down in the notice for the competition which they passed;

infringement of the rules on the interpretation of Community law, in so far as the interpretation followed by the CST was not based either on the wording or the logic of Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and an error of law, the interpretation followed by the CST having infringed the principle whereby two situations not being substantially different may not be treated differently, inasmuch as there is no substantial difference between members of the temporary staff established on moving to a different category and those classified as officials following an open competition; moreover, some members of the temporary staff who had become officials following an open competition had kept their promotion points, which was not the case with the appellant;

infringement of Community law, and in particular of the eligibility for a career and of the eligibility of members of the temporary staff to become officials.

____________