# C_2004118EN.01005001.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/50 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 24 March 2004 by Willem Goris against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-126/04)

(2004/C 118/107)

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 24 March 2004 by Willem Goris, resident in Strassen (Luxembourg), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of 5 May 2003 inasmuch as it:
—
did not classify the applicant in Grade B4, step 3, at the time of his recruitment; —
did not reconstitute the applicant's career in terms of his grade by bringing forward the date of his promotion to Grade B3 and granting him, if it so be, promotion to Grade B2; —
limited the date of effect of the reclassification decision in regard to its pecuniary effects to 5 October 1995; | — | did not classify the applicant in Grade B4, step 3, at the time of his recruitment; | — | did not reconstitute the applicant's career in terms of his grade by bringing forward the date of his promotion to Grade B3 and granting him, if it so be, promotion to Grade B2; | — | limited the date of effect of the reclassification decision in regard to its pecuniary effects to 5 October 1995; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | did not classify the applicant in Grade B4, step 3, at the time of his recruitment; | | | | | | |
| — | did not reconstitute the applicant's career in terms of his grade by bringing forward the date of his promotion to Grade B3 and granting him, if it so be, promotion to Grade B2; | | | | | | |
| — | limited the date of effect of the reclassification decision in regard to its pecuniary effects to 5 October 1995; | | | | | | |

| — | in so far as necessary annul the implied decision of the appointing authority of 14 December 2003, rejecting his complaint R/487/03; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation provisionally set in the amount of EUR 125 000 per annum in the event that, owing to impossibility, it is unable to reconstitute the applicant's career in terms of his grade; |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

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

Pleas and main arguments

The applicant in these proceedings who, on his recruitment in September 1994, was classified in Grade B5, step 3, challenges the decision of the appointing authority classifying him, on revision, in Grade B4, step 2, and not in Grade B4, step 3, refusing to reconstitute his career and limiting the date of effect of the decision on his reclassification to 5 October 1995.

The pleas raised are identical to those in Case T-125/04 Rousseaux v Commisison

---