Action brought on 7 October 2005 - Marenco v Commission

(Case T-378/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Giuliano Marenco (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Pappalardo, M. Merola, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the determination of the applicant's salary of January 2005 (last month of service),

to the extent that that determination fails to take into account the increase in basic salary provided for in Article 7(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations,

to the extent that the multiplication factor is shown as 0.9982852 instead of 1;

-    annul the decision awarding and calculating the applicant's pension rights, adopted on 31 January 2005 by the Head of the Pensions unit of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements,

-    to the extent that it fails to take into account the increase in basic salary provided for in Article 7(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations,

-    to the extent that the figure 0.9982852 appears instead of 1 in the classification at the termination of service,

-    to the extent that it establishes the pension classification as A*16/03,

-    annul the decision of 1 July 2005 adopted by the Director General of the Directorate for Personnel and Administration (ADMIN.B. 2 - SHS/amd - D (05)15121), which rejected both of the applicant's complaints (No R/266/05 and R/298/05),

-    order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, former Deputy Director-General of the Commission's Legal Service, who retired in February 2005, was classified, before leaving the service, at grade A*16 and benefited, until the end of 2004, from the increase in salary provided for in Article 7(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations. In accordance with the amendments to the Staff Regulations which entered into force on 1 May 2004, a multiplication factor of 0.9580274 was applicable to his basic salary, reflecting the difference between the basic salary laid down for his grade and step under the old and new Staff Regulations.

On 1 January 2005, the applicant reached the sixth step in his grade. Since the basic salaries laid down for that step under the old and new Staff Regulations are the same, the applicant takes the view that the applicable multiplication factor should from then on be '1'. However, a multiplication factor of 0.9982852 appeared, from that month onwards, both on his last salary slip and in the decision awarding and calculating his pension rights. In addition, the increase in salary provided for in Article 7(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations was not included in his salary for the month of January 2005 and, consequently, was not taken into account when determining his pension rights, which were calculated on the basis of his salary for that month. Finally, the decision determining the pension rights classified the applicant at step 3, instead of step 6, in his grade.

In support of his action, the applicant claims infringement of Article 2(2), of Article 7(4), and of Article 8(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations. He also pleads infringement of his legitimate expectations, allegedly arising from the result of an indicative calculation of his pension rights which he carried out with the assistance of an IT tool ('calculette'), which the Commission provided to staff. According to the applicant, the 'calculette' envisaged that the increase in question would be taken into account when determining the pension.

____________