Action brought on 2 October 2006 - Di Bucci v Commission

(Case F-118/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vittorio Di Bucci (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. van der Woude, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul the merit list and the list of officials promoted to grade A*12 in 2005, drawn up pursuant to Article 10(3) and (4) of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and published in Administrative Notice No 85-2005 of 23 November 2005 and, in any event, annul the decision not to include the applicant's name in the list of promoted officials;

in so far as necessary, annul all of the measures which led to the adoption of that decision and, in particular, the decisions setting the number of points to be awarded to the applicant;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official assigned to the Legal Service who has regularly obtained one of the highest assessments, in terms of merit points (MP), in his grade and in his department, invokes firstly infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the General Provisions for implementing that article, which require merit to be the determining factor for the awarding of Directorate-General (DG) priority points and for promotion. The non-promotion of the applicant is the result, first, of the unlawful conduct which he has already challenged in Cases F-98/05 ¹ and T-312/04; ² second, of the criteria for awarding DG priority points within the Legal Service, which give priority to the most senior officials in the grade, irrespective of their merit; third, of certain flaws in the awarding of points, in particular by the Promotion Committee, to other officials.

The applicant further alleges that the contested measures also infringe the principle of equal treatment and the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects, include a manifest error of assessment and constitute a misuse of powers. Finally, they are marred by several procedural or formal defects.

Finally, the applicant pleads the illegality of the abovementioned General Provisions, arguing as follows:

-    by omitting to take into account the level of responsibility deployed and the use of different languages in the performance of duties, the General Provisions infringe the new version of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

-    by providing that promotions are to be determined by the unreasoned awarding of priority points, on the proposal of each DG or the Promotion Committee, Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of the General Provisions infringe in particular Articles 25(2) and 45 of the Staff Regulations;

-    by attributing to each DG a uniform quota of points per official, Articles 4 and 6 of the General Provisions infringe Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects, and the principle of equal treatment;

-    by providing for the award of transitional priority points based essentially on seniority within a grade, Article 13(2) of and Annex II to the General Provisions infringe Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

-    by providing for the awarding of priority points of the Personnel Committee in recognition of certain supplementary tasks undertaken in the interest of the institution which are already taken into account during the awarding of MPs and DG priority points, Article 9 of and Annex I to the General Provisions infringe Article 45 of the Staff Regulations as well as the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects and the principle of equal treatment;

-    by providing for more favourable treatment for officials of DGs or services that have fewer staff and for officials seconded to the offices of members of the Commission, Article 6(2) of the General Provisions infringes Article 45 of the Staff Regulations as well as the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects and the principle of equal treatment.

____________

¹ - OJ C 10 of 14.1.2006, p. 24 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-381/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Communities by order of 15.12.2005).

² - OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004, p. 45.