- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case F-31/07: Action brought on 2 April 2007 — Putterie-de-Beukelaer v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007FN0031
62007FN0031
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
26.5.2007
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 117/38
(Case F-31/07)
(2007/C 117/62)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Françoise Putterie-de-Beukelaer (XX) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
—annulment of the applicant's Career Development Report (‘CDR’) concerning the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005, including appeal procedures and other decisions relating to them, and specifically of section 6.5, ‘Potential’, in so far as it does not accept that the applicant has the potential to carry out functions in category B*;
—order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of her appeal, the applicant puts forward, first, the fact that the administration made manifest errors of assessment in so far as it did not accept that she had the potential to carry out functions in category B* for the purpose of the attestation procedure provided for in Article 10(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’). In particular, in contrast to what was stated in the applicant's CDR, her duties as head of computer training fall within the scope of category B*.
Secondly, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, of the principles of respect for the rights of the defence, transparency, the audi alteram partem rule and the principle of sound administration of staff. In particular, she submits that some documents used for the purposes of her appraisal were not communicated to her at the appropriate time.
Thirdly, the applicant raises the infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations and of the duty to give reasons.
Fourthly, the applicant alleges the infringement of the principle of equal treatment of staff and non-discrimination, in so far as the duties carried out by a head of computer training, she submits, are assessed in different ways for the purposes of the attestation procedure depending on the directorates general and the hierarchical superiors.