# C_2006060EN.01005301.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/53

---

Action brought on 21 December 2005 — Economidis v Commission

(Case F-122/05)

(2006/C 60/98)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ioannis Economidis (Woluwé-St-Etienne, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J-N Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Defendant(s):

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission's decision appointing Mr S. Hogan to the post of Head of Unit ‘Biotechnology and applied genomics’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision appointing Mr S. Hogan to the post of Head of Unit ‘Biotechnology and applied genomics’;

| — | annul the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature for that post; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature for that post;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission, contests the appointing authority's rejection of his candidature for the post as Head of Unit ‘Biotechnology and applied genomics’ (vacancy notice COM/R/7012/04).

In support of the form of order sought, he relies on the unlawfulness of the recruitment procedure, breach of Articles 29(1) and 31 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the obligation to state reasons and a manifest error of assessment.

He claims, specifically, that:

| — | by failing to fix the grade at which the post would be filled, the appointing authority did not inform candidates as precisely as possible of the nature of the conditions required to occupy the vacant post in order to put them in a position to determine whether it was appropriate to apply for it; |
| --- | --- |

—

by failing to fix the grade at which the post would be filled, the appointing authority did not inform candidates as precisely as possible of the nature of the conditions required to occupy the vacant post in order to put them in a position to determine whether it was appropriate to apply for it;

| — | the reasons provided by the Commission are irrelevant, in so far as they do not permit the applicant to examine the merits of the decision or the Community judicature to exercise its power of review; |
| --- | --- |

—

the reasons provided by the Commission are irrelevant, in so far as they do not permit the applicant to examine the merits of the decision or the Community judicature to exercise its power of review;

| — | the contested decisions are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in that the candidate chosen does not have all the general and special qualifications required, unlike the applicant, whose professional experience demonstrates his high abilities, notably in management. |
| --- | --- |

—

the contested decisions are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in that the candidate chosen does not have all the general and special qualifications required, unlike the applicant, whose professional experience demonstrates his high abilities, notably in management.

---