This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62005TN0333
Case T-333/05: Action brought on 29 August 2005 — Ezerniece Liljeberg and Others v Commission
Case T-333/05: Action brought on 29 August 2005 — Ezerniece Liljeberg and Others v Commission
Case T-333/05: Action brought on 29 August 2005 — Ezerniece Liljeberg and Others v Commission
OB C 281, 12.11.2005, p. 29–29
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 29/08/2005
- Author:
- Първоинстанционен съд
- Form:
- Съдебна информация
|
12.11.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 281/29 |
Action brought on 29 August 2005 — Ezerniece Liljeberg and Others v Commission
(Case T-333/05)
(2005/C 281/54)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant(s): Kristine Ezerniece Liljeberg (Brussels, Belgium), and Others (represented by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi, C. Ronzi, lawyers)
Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:
|
— |
Annul the decision appointing the applicants in so far as it establishes their grade as grade A*6; |
|
— |
Consequently, wholly restore the applicants' rightful career prospects (including giving proper weight to their experience in the grade thus adjusted, their promotion rights and their pension rights), whilst observing strict equality in relation to the other officials who were successful candidates in the same competition and work in European institutions other than the Commission; |
|
— |
Grant the applicants default interest at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank on all the sums corresponding to the difference between the salary corresponding to their grade in the decision of recruitment and the grade to which they should have been entitled, up to the date on which the decision properly grading them is taken; |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants are officials of the Commission entrusted with lawyer-linguist duties who were recruited on the basis of lists of suitable candidates resulting from competitions at LA 7/LA 6 levels before 1 May 2004. Article 13(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations provides that in such a case the institutions may recruit lawyer-linguists at grade A*7 instead of A*6. However, the Commission did not exercise that power and recruited the applicants at grade A*6.
The applicants are challenging that decision with their application, claiming that the other institutions would have appointed successful candidates in the same position at grade A*7 and that the Commission itself employs lawyer-linguists as temporary agents at grade A*7. On that basis, the applicants claim infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, of Article 1d(1) of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of assignment to an equivalent post and grade, of Article 9(3) of the Treaty of Amsterdam and, finally, of Article 13(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.
Moreover, the applicants claim that the Commission assured them that they would be recruited at grade A*7 and, on that basis, they allege infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of legal certainty, the principle of good administration, the principle of good faith, the principle of transparency and of the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of officials.
