Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document C2006/212/85

    Case F-68/06: Action brought on 22 June 2006 — Bakema v Commission

    OB C 212, 2.9.2006, p. 48–48 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    2.9.2006   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 212/48

    Action brought on 22 June 2006 — Bakema v Commission

    (Case F-68/06)

    (2006/C 212/85)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Reint Jacob Bakema (Zuidlaren, the Netherlands) (represented by: L. Rijpkema, lawyer)

    Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

    Form of order sought

    —

    Annul the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment (AACC) dated 22 March 2006;

    —

    Order the AACC to engage the applicant in function group IV, grade 16;

    —

    Declare that the applicant must be granted an adequate sum by way of damages.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The applicant, a former member of the so-called local technical assistance staff (ALAT), has been engaged as a member of the contract staff and classified in function group IV, grade 14.

    In his action, the applicant claims that the defendant made inaccurate application of the relevant legislation, especially of Article 82 (2) (c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities (CEOS) and Article 2 of General Implementation Provisions (GIP) 49-2004. The applicant submits that the defendant's interpretation of the term ‘diploma’ contained in those articles is inaccurate and arbitrary. In the calculation of his professional experience, the defendant should have taken into consideration all the activities the applicant carried out after obtaining his ‘kandidaatsdiploma’.

    The applicant further claims that, even if he used to be a member of ALAT before his engagement as a member of contract staff, the principle laid down in Article 86 of the CEOS should be applied to his case. According to that principle, where an agent moves to a new post within a function group, he shall not be classified in a lower grade or step than in his former post.

    Top