# C_2005155EN.01002401.xml

| 25.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/24

---

Action brought on 4 April 2005 by José Antonio de Brito Sequeiro Carvalho against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-145/05)

(2005/C 155/47)

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 4 April 2005 by José Antonio de Brito Sequeiro Carvalho, residing in Lisbon, represented by Karel Hartog Hagenaar, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare the contested act non-existent and void; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare the contested act non-existent and void;

| 2. | annul or withdraw all subsequent acts referring to, confirming or seeking to extend the purported effects of that non-existent act; |
| --- | --- |

2.

annul or withdraw all subsequent acts referring to, confirming or seeking to extend the purported effects of that non-existent act;

| 3. | order the payment of compensation for the detrimental consequences of that act, provisonally estimated at EUR 30 000, out of damage estimated at EUR 300 000; |
| --- | --- |

3.

order the payment of compensation for the detrimental consequences of that act, provisonally estimated at EUR 30 000, out of damage estimated at EUR 300 000;

| 4. | order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings and outlays. |
| --- | --- |

4.

order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings and outlays.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought inter alia against the act which the Director-General acting for the Directorate-General for Development is alleged to have required the applicant to sign and to have had placed on his administrative file, whereby he decided to require the applicant to take sick leave. The applicant also objects to the maintenance of a parallel file.

In the applicant's opinion, the act in question should be regarded as legally non-existent.

In support of his claims, the applicant further alleges:

| — | that the reasons for the contested act are invalid; |
| --- | --- |

—

that the reasons for the contested act are invalid;

| — | that the decision rejecting the complaint lodged pursuant to Article 90 of the Staff Regulations is based on facts and conduct attributed to him, of which he had no knowledge, which had never been referred to in his periodic reports and which had never been mentioned to him by his immediate superiors; |
| --- | --- |

—

that the decision rejecting the complaint lodged pursuant to Article 90 of the Staff Regulations is based on facts and conduct attributed to him, of which he had no knowledge, which had never been referred to in his periodic reports and which had never been mentioned to him by his immediate superiors;

| — | the existence in this case of misuse of powers and abuse of process; |
| --- | --- |

—

the existence in this case of misuse of powers and abuse of process;

| — | breach of the principles of equality and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the principles of equality and non-discrimination.

---