This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/235/53
Case F-69/07: Action brought on 12 July 2007 — U v Commission
Case F-69/07: Action brought on 12 July 2007 — U v Commission
Case F-69/07: Action brought on 12 July 2007 — U v Commission
SL C 235, 6.10.2007, p. 29–29
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
6.10.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 235/29 |
Action brought on 12 July 2007 — U v Commission
(Case F-69/07)
(2007/C 235/53)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: U (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
|
— |
annul the Commission's decisions fixing the conditions of employment of the applicant as a member of the contract staff in so far as they provide for, first, the application of the proviso laid down in Article 100 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (‘the CEOS’) and in Article 1 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’), and, secondly, the duration of the contract to be the period from 16 September 2006 to 15 September 2009; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, after having worked for the Commission from 1 May 2001 to 15 September 2006 as a member of the local staff and member of the auxiliary staff under 14 successive separate fixed-term contracts of employment, was recruited as a member of the contract staff for the period from 16 September 2006 to 15 September 2009. Having established during the medical visit prior to recruitment that the applicant was suffering from a sickness, the Appointing Authority applied the proviso laid down in Article 100 of the CEOS and Article 1 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.
In support of her appeal, the applicant first submits that by limiting the duration of her contract as a member of the contract staff, the Commission infringed the principle of stability of the employment relationship such as it follows from the general principles of law relating to the protection of workers. In so far as it is necessary, she pleads that Article 88 of the CEOS is unlawful.
In addition, the applicant claims that the proviso clause not to grant her guaranteed benefits in respect of invalidity or death fails to take account of the scope of Article 100 of the CEOS, inasmuch as the administration is imposing on her a new exclusion period of 5 years even though she has been in the Commission's service since 1 May 2001. In so far as it is necessary, she pleads that Article 100 of the CEOS is unlawful.