EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/32

(Case F-23/06)

(2006/C 108/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Roberto Abad-Villanueva and Others (represented by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The Tribunal is asked to

—annul the decisions notifying the applicants of their change of category, in so far as those decisions allocate a grade lower than that which should have been obtained under the provisions of the Staff Regulations, maintain the mulitplier coefficient and cancel the applicants' promotion points;

—declare that Article 12 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations is unlawful;

—order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants were all successful candidates in internal competitions for change of category COM/PA/04 and COM/PB/04, in respect of which notices were published before the date on which the new Staff Regulations entered into force. After that date, they were appointed by the defendant to a higher category, but with the same grade, step and multiplier coefficient as before. By contrast, their promotion points were reset at zero.

In their application, the applicants submit that the appointment decisions infringe Articles 31 and 62 of the Staff Regulations and Article 2(1) and (2) and Article 5(2) of Annex XIII thereto, inasmuch as under those provisions they should have obtained a better grading. The defendant has thus infringed the right of all officials to be recruited to the grade stated in the competition notice, and has discriminated against the applicants as compared with the successful candidates in other competitions giving access to the same categories.

Furthermore, the applicants submit that there is no legal basis which permits the defendant to continue to apply to them the multiplier coefficients laid down by their former categories or to deprive them of the promotion points they have in their ‘rucksacks’.

Finally, according to the applicants, the contested decisions also infringe the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, the protection of acquired rights and equal treatment.