# C_2004273EN.01003301.xml

| 6.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/33

---

Action brought on 3 August 2004 by Günter Wilms against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-328/04)

(2004/C 273/64)

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 3 August 2004 by Günter Wilms, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc van der Woude and Valérie Landes, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

| — | annul the list of promotions of 27 November 2003, in that it does not include the applicant's name or, as a subsidiary plea, the list of merit of 13 November 2003, in that it does not include the applicant's name, because of the attribution to him of an insufficient number of additional priority points; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the list of promotions of 27 November 2003, in that it does not include the applicant's name or, as a subsidiary plea, the list of merit of 13 November 2003, in that it does not include the applicant's name, because of the attribution to him of an insufficient number of additional priority points;

| — | annul the decision of the Director General of the Legal Service, adopted on the basis of Article 6(3) of the General Provisions giving effect to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, to award him only one Directorate-General priority point and only four priority points in total for the 2003 promotion period; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Director General of the Legal Service, adopted on the basis of Article 6(3) of the General Provisions giving effect to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, to award him only one Directorate-General priority point and only four priority points in total for the 2003 promotion period;

| — | annul the appointing authority's decision, adopted on the basis of Article 9 of the General Provisions giving effect to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, not to award him any ‘Promotion Committee for additional activity in the interests of the institution’ special priority points for the 2003 promotion year; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appointing authority's decision, adopted on the basis of Article 9 of the General Provisions giving effect to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, not to award him any ‘Promotion Committee for additional activity in the interests of the institution’ special priority points for the 2003 promotion year;

| — | annul the appointing authority's implied decision rejecting the applicant's ‘appeal’ made to the Promotion Committee concerning the award of priority points to the Legal Service and the award of priority points for additional tasks; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appointing authority's implied decision rejecting the applicant's ‘appeal’ made to the Promotion Committee concerning the award of priority points to the Legal Service and the award of priority points for additional tasks;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant claims that the decision of the Director General of the Legal Service to award him four priority points amounts to infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 6(4) of the General Provisions giving effect to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, and breach of the principle that officials are to have reasonable career prospects, and a manifest error of assessment. In addition, he alleges infringement of Article 6(3)(a) of the General Provisions giving effect to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and breach of the principle that officials are to have reasonable career prospects, together with the principle of equal treatment. Thirdly, he alleges misuse of powers.

Moreover, the appointing authority's decision not to award him any priority points for additional duties is, according to the applicant, unlawful for it amounts to infringement of Article 9(1) and (2) of, and of Annex 1 to, the General Provisions giving effect to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and breach of the principle of equal treatment.

Finally, the applicant claims that the appointing authority's decision not to award him any additional promotion points following his appeal to the promotion committee is unlawful, in that sufficient reasons have not been given for that decision.

---