EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case F-82/07: Action brought on 6 August 2007 — Dittert v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007FN0082

62007FN0082

August 6, 2007
With Google you find a lot.
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

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/32

(Case F-82/07)

(2007/C 235/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Daniel Dittert (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities to promote the applicant to grade AD 9, and not AD 10, under the 2006 promotion procedure, as confirmed by that Institution's decision of 23 April 2007, rejecting the applicant's complaint No R/132/07;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an established official at the Commission, having been promoted to the old grade A 7 with effect from 1 April 2002, was on 30 April 2004 eligible for promotion to grade A 6. On 1 May 2004, the Appointing Authority replaced grade A 7 in the applicant's staff file with the new grade A*8, stating the reason for the amendment to be the ‘career reform of 1 May 2004’. Subsequently, grade A*8 was renamed AD 8 with effect from 1 May 2006.

The applicant submits that though the officials promoted in 2004 and those promoted in 2005 or 2006 from the old grade A 7 were all promoted after the entry into force of the amendments to the Staff Regulations, some were appointed to grade A*10/AD 10 while others, including the applicant, were appointed to grade A*9/AD 9. The applicant pleads an infringement of the principles of equal treatment and reasonable career prospects for officials.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia