Action brought on 16 June 2007 - Collotte v Commission

(Case F-58/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Pascal Collotte (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul the decision taken not to include the applicant's name on the promotions list for promotion from A*11 to A*12 for the '2006 promotion exercise' and, consequently, annul the decision not to promote him, as published in Administrative Notices No 55-2006 of 17 November 2006;

order the defendant to pay, as damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss and in respect of the adverse effect on the applicant's career, the sum of EUR 25 000, subject to any increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant - a former member of the temporary staff who was appointed an official in grade A*11 from 16 April 2004, following his success in an internal competition - was considered ineligible for promotion under the 2006 promotion exercise, because (i) he had not demonstrated his ability to work in a third language, in accordance with Article 45(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities ('the Staff Regulations') and (ii) he was not entitled to benefit from the exception designed for officials who already had two years' experience in their existing grade as at 1 April 2006.

In support of his action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, the first of which alleges breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and that the administration committed manifest errors of assessment. In particular, the applicant submits that, under the transitional provisions of Article 11 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, Article 45(2) of the Staff Regulation ought not to have been applied to the 2006 promotion exercise, especially since the rules for implementing that provision were finalised only in December 2006. As it was not until August 2006 that the applicant was informed that the provision at issue applied to his case, he maintains that he did not have access to the training necessary to enable him to acquire the ability to work in a third language within a reasonable period of time.

The second plea in law alleges breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, infringement of the principles of good administration and sound management and the existence of a misuse of powers. The applicant submits in particular that the administration did not have the right to apply Article 45(2) of the Staff Regulations to him at the last minute.

The third plea in law alleges infringement of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty. The Commission's departments, the applicant submits, gave him precise and consistent assurances as to the non-applicability to his case of the new requirement imposed by Article 45(2) of the Staff Regulations.

The fourth plea alleges infringement of the principles of equal treatment of staff, non-discrimination and proportionality. The applicant claims that he was placed at a disadvantage in relation to other members of the temporary staff, who, following success in an internal competition entitling them to establishment, had already been appointed officials by 1 April 2004, unlike the applicant.

____________