# C_2004094EN.01004903.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/49

---

Action brought on 9 February 2004 by Mohammad Reza Fardoom and Marie José Reinard against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-43/04)

(2004/C 94/135)

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 9 February 2004 by Mohammad Reza Fardoom and Marie José Reinard, residing at Luxembourg, represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Annul the evaluation exercise 2001/2002 in relation to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the evaluation exercise 2001/2002 in relation to the applicants;

| — | Alternatively, annul the applicants' career development reports (REC/CDR) for the period 1.7.2001-31.12.2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alternatively, annul the applicants' career development reports (REC/CDR) for the period 1.7.2001-31.12.2002;

| — | Decide as to costs, expenses and fees and order the Commission of the European Communities to pay them. |
| --- | --- |

—

Decide as to costs, expenses and fees and order the Commission of the European Communities to pay them.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, officials of the Commission, contest the evaluation exercise 2001-2002 and, alternatively, their career development reports for the period 1.7.2001-31.12.2002.

The applicants rely on infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations. They assert that the creation of computer forms completed directly on screen and stored in the new computer system for personnel management is equivalent to the creation of parallel files.

Furthermore, the applicants rely upon infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. The fixing of a mean target and the procedure of communicating vessels constrains appraisers and, therefore, restrains their freedom of judgment in the appraisal of officials' services.

In support of their action, the applicants also plead:

| — | infringement of the Commission's decision relating to the General Provisions for Implementation of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the Commission's decision relating to the General Provisions for Implementation of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations;

| — | infringement of the Appraisal Guide and of the special guide for the staff evaluation exercise (2001-2002); |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the Appraisal Guide and of the special guide for the staff evaluation exercise (2001-2002);

| — | infringement of the principle of non-discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the principle of non-discrimination;

| — | infringement of the principle of preventing arbitrary procedures, of the duty to state reasons, and abuse of powers; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the principle of preventing arbitrary procedures, of the duty to state reasons, and abuse of powers;

| — | infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the rule patere legem quam ipse fecisti (abide by your own rules); |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the rule patere legem quam ipse fecisti (abide by your own rules);

patere legem quam ipse fecisti

| — | breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare and/ or interests of officials. |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare and/ or interests of officials.

---