Language of document :

Action brought on 21 July 2006 - Duyster v Commission

(Case F-81/06)

Language of the case: Dutch


Applicant: Tineke Duyster (Oetrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: W.H.A.M. van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

declare the appeal inadmissible in its entirety;

annul the decisions of the Appointing Authority of 8 November 2005 and of 11 May 2006;

grant the applicant damages for the loss suffered;

in the alternative, grant wholly or in part the forms of order sought above or adopt a decision granting the applicant's requests of 5 and 13 July 2005;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In Cases F-51/06 1 and F-18/06, 2 the applicant has already challenged the fact that the Commission first granted her parental leave in respect of the period from 1 November 2004 to 30 April 2005 and then, by letter of 17 November 2005, fixed the starting date of her parental leave at 8 November 2004.

In this case, the applicant challenges the decisions by which the Commission rejected as inadmissible her requests submitted in order to obtain damages under Article 288 EC and Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials, concerning approximately 50 objections relating to allegedly negligent acts committed by the Commission's departments.

In support of her action against the decisions of inadmissibility, the applicant alleges, inter alia: (i) that the decisions were based on incorrect facts (ii) infringement of the content and rationale of Article 90(1) and (2) of the Staff Regulations; (iii) that the decisions are contradictory; (iv) that the decisions lack clarity; (v) that the Appointing Authority is incorrectly interpreting and/or applying the case-law relating to Article 288 EC and Article 90 of the Staff Regulations; (vi) that the Appointing Authority uses misconceived arguments; (vii) infringement of the principles of proportionality, the protection of legitimate expectations, equal treatment and legal certainty, and infringement of the principle that different interests must be weighed against each other, failure to observe the employer's duty to provide information, and infringement of the principle of sound administration and the right to a legal remedy.


1 - OJ C 217, 3.9.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-249/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by Order of 15.12.2005).

2 - OJ C 154, 1.7.2006