Action brought on 12 September 2005 — Vandaele v Commission

(Case T-355/05)

(2005/C 315/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Vandaele (Bertem, Belgium) (represented by: S.Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant took part in selection procedure OLAF/T/B/02 initiated by the Commission to fill temporary staff positions at Grade B in the Anti-fraud Office. By letter of 28 October 2002, she was informed that her name had been included on the list of suitable candidates. However, she did not begin working for the Commission, for OLAF, until 1 September 2004, although the procedure for her engagement had begun at the end of 2003. Her contract, signed on 3 November 2004, classified her at Grade B*4, in accordance with the Commission's decision of 28 April 2004 on the engagement of temporary staff, under which temporary personnel are engaged at Grade A*8 or B*4.

By her action, the applicant challenges her classification. She submits that the Commission, by its decision of 28 April 2004, amended the call for candidatures to Category B, where the minimum grade, at the time of that call's publication, was Grade B5 (renamed B*5 under the new Staff Regulations). Such an amendment, which occurred after the list of successful candidates had been drawn up, infringes Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations and the third paragraph of Article 10 of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities, as well as the applicant's prospects of being recruited to one of the vacant posts intended to be filled by successful candidates in the selection procedure to which she had been admitted.

In addition, the applicant claims infringement of the principle of equal treatment to the extent that successful candidates in the same procedure who were recruited prior to 1 May 2004, and classified in accordance with the previous rules, were classified at higher grades and benefit from better conditions for career progress.

Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of her legitimate expectation that she will be recruited at Grade B2 or B3 without unjustified delay.