This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/170/82
Case F-47/07: Action brought on 21 May 2007 –Behmer v Parliament
Case F-47/07: Action brought on 21 May 2007 –Behmer v Parliament
Case F-47/07: Action brought on 21 May 2007 –Behmer v Parliament
SL C 170, 21.7.2007, p. 43–43
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
21.7.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 170/43 |
Action brought on 21 May 2007 –Behmer v Parliament
(Case F-47/07)
(2007/C 170/82)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Joachim Behmer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)
Defendant: European Parliament
Form of order sought
|
— |
Declare unlawful the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament relating to the ‘Policy on promotion and on career planning’ of 6 July 2005 and the ‘Implementing measures relating to the award of merit points and to promotion’ of 25 July 2005; |
|
— |
Annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to grade A*13 with effect from 1 January 2005 in the 2005 promotions procedure; |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, a grade AD12 official of the European Parliament who is currently Vice-President of the Trade Union of the European Public Service, Luxembourg (Union Syndicale Luxembourg), pleads in the first place the unlawfulness of the decisions referred to in the first indent above, which are in his opinion general provisions for giving effect to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘Staff Regulations’) for the purposes of Article 110 thereof.
The applicant also pleads infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the principles governing reasonable career prospects, equality of treatment and the duty to give reasons, and he also pleads a manifest error of assessment. In particular, he asserts that the administration, after annulling, following his first complaint, the decision to award him 2 merit points, should have promoted him to grade AD13.
Finally, the applicant contends that he was discriminated against because of his activities as a representative of the personnel, contrary to Article 1d and 24b of the Staff Regulations, to the sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II of the Staff Regulations and to Article 17 of the Agreement of 12 July 1990 between the European Parliament and the trade unions or staff associations of the personnel of the institution.