# C_2005193EN.01003602.xml

| 6.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/36

---

Action brought on 30 May 2005 by Michael Brown against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-208/05)

(2005/C 193/61)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 May 2005 by Michael Brown, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on 10 February 2005 (notified under cover of a note dated 14 February 2005, received on 25 February 2005), rejecting the claim brought by the applicant on 16 September 2004 against the decision of 22 June 2004 adopted by the president of the selection board of Competition COM/PB/04 refusing the applicant admission to that competition; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on 10 February 2005 (notified under cover of a note dated 14 February 2005, received on 25 February 2005), rejecting the claim brought by the applicant on 16 September 2004 against the decision of 22 June 2004 adopted by the president of the selection board of Competition COM/PB/04 refusing the applicant admission to that competition;

| 2. | in addition, in so far as it is necessary, annul the decision adopted on 22 June 2004 by the president of the selection board of Competition COM/PB/04 and the confirmation thereof dated 19 July 2004; |
| --- | --- |

2.

in addition, in so far as it is necessary, annul the decision adopted on 22 June 2004 by the president of the selection board of Competition COM/PB/04 and the confirmation thereof dated 19 July 2004;

| 3. | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The application of the applicant, an auxiliary agent at the Commission, for admission to internal competition for change of category COM/PB/04 was rejected on the ground that he was not a temporary agent or an official at the closing date for the lodging of applications.

The applicant relies on two pleas, alleging

| — | firstly, infringement of Articles 27 and 29(1) of the Staff Regulations and a manifest error of assessment in that the contested decisions and the notice of competition had the effect of excluding candidates who could show that they had particular skills and considerable professional experience within the Commission in favour of candidates who were potentially less competent and who had less effective seniority in the Commission's services, and |
| --- | --- |

—

firstly, infringement of Articles 27 and 29(1) of the Staff Regulations and a manifest error of assessment in that the contested decisions and the notice of competition had the effect of excluding candidates who could show that they had particular skills and considerable professional experience within the Commission in favour of candidates who were potentially less competent and who had less effective seniority in the Commission's services, and

| — | secondly, infringement of the principle of non-discrimination in that employees the greater part of whose career had been spent at the Commission as auxiliary agents would be admitted to the competition on the sole ground that they were temporary agents at the closing date for the lodging of applications, whereas the applicant, who was a temporary agent of long standing, was excluded on the sole ground that he was an auxiliary agent on that date. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, infringement of the principle of non-discrimination in that employees the greater part of whose career had been spent at the Commission as auxiliary agents would be admitted to the competition on the sole ground that they were temporary agents at the closing date for the lodging of applications, whereas the applicant, who was a temporary agent of long standing, was excluded on the sole ground that he was an auxiliary agent on that date.

---