EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/022/30
Case T-401/05: Action brought on 2 November 2005 — Toth v Commission
Case T-401/05: Action brought on 2 November 2005 — Toth v Commission
Case T-401/05: Action brought on 2 November 2005 — Toth v Commission
JO C 22, 28.1.2006, p. 15–16
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
28.1.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 22/15 |
Action brought on 2 November 2005 — Toth v Commission
(Case T-401/05)
(2006/C 22/30)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Gergely Toth (Besozzo, Italy) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyer)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Forms of order sought
The applicant claim that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the Commission's decision of 20 July 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint of 15 April 2005, taken together with the contract of employment signed by the applicant on 17 January 2005 in so far as it fixes his grade in accordance with Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and his step pursuant to the current Article 32 of the Staff Regulations; |
|
— |
inform the Commission as to the effects of the annulment of the contested decision and, in particular, the reclassification of the applicant in grade A*9 with retroactive effect; |
|
— |
in the alternative, order the Commission to compensate the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the fact that he was not classified in grade A*9 from 17 January 2005; |
|
— |
in any event, order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant responded to a call for tenders issued by the Commission to recruit an administrator in career bracket A8/A5, published on 25 July 2003. Having been chosen he entered into a contract, dated 17 January 2005, as a member of temporary staff with the Commission in which his grade was fixed at A*6.
By his action, the applicant challenges his grading by submitting, primarily, that, in the present case, Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is inapplicable on the ground that that disposition is applicable only to officials and not to members of temporary staff. In the alternative, he raises a plea of illegality by submitting that the application of that provision to him is contrary to the principle of equal treatment of the successful candidates in calls for tenders published before 1 May 2004 and constitutes discrimination on the ground of nationality and an infringement of the freedom of movement for workers, since nationals of the new Member States are inevitably appointed under less favourable provisions.
The applicant also alleges discrimination between staff carrying out the same duties and infringement of the principle of equivalence between the nature of duties and remuneration. In addition, he submits that Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is contrary to Article 31 of the Staff Regulations and adversely affects his legitimate expectations, the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the interests of officials.
The applicant also claims that he should be compensated for both the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage that he allegedly incurred.