# C_2004262EN.01003701.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/37

---

Action brought on 9 July 2004 by Guy Tachelet against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-293/04)

(2004/C 262/70)

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 July 2004 by Guy Tachelet, residing in Rijmenam (Belgium), represented by N. Lhöest, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the appointing authority's decision of 2 September 2003, in that:






  — | the Commission did not grant the applicant additional seniority of 48 months at the time of his recruitment; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the appointing authority's decision of 2 September 2003, in that:

—

the Commission did not grant the applicant additional seniority of 48 months at the time of his recruitment;

| — | the Commission did not reconstitute the applicant's career by bringing forward the date of his promotion to grade B3 and, if applicable, a promotion to grade B2 (now B*8); |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission did not reconstitute the applicant's career by bringing forward the date of his promotion to grade B3 and, if applicable, a promotion to grade B2 (now B*8);

| — | the Commission did not consider the comparative merits of the persons concerned for the promotion exercises as from which the applicant became eligible for promotion to grade B3; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission did not consider the comparative merits of the persons concerned for the promotion exercises as from which the applicant became eligible for promotion to grade B3;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the appointing authority's express decision of 16 March 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint (R/714/03); |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the appointing authority's express decision of 16 March 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint (R/714/03);

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation fixed provisionally at EUR 125,000 in the unlikely event that it should be unable to reconstitute the applicant's career in grade; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation fixed provisionally at EUR 125,000 in the unlikely event that it should be unable to reconstitute the applicant's career in grade;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant, who had been classified in grade B5, step 3, on recruitment in October 1995, objects to the appointing authority's decision to fix that classification, upon review, at grade B4, step 2, and not at grade B4, step 3, not to reconstitute his career and not to consider the comparative merits of the persons concerned for the promotion exercises as from which he was eligible for promotion to grade B3.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:

| — | as regards seniority on the date of recruitment, infringement of the Commission's decisions of 6 June 1973 and 1 September 1983 on the criteria applicable to appointment in grade and to classification in step on recruitment, breach of Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equality and also breach of the duty to state the reasons for decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

as regards seniority on the date of recruitment, infringement of the Commission's decisions of 6 June 1973 and 1 September 1983 on the criteria applicable to appointment in grade and to classification in step on recruitment, breach of Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equality and also breach of the duty to state the reasons for decisions;

| — | as regards the refusal to reconstitute the applicant's career, breach of Article 5(3) and Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

—

as regards the refusal to reconstitute the applicant's career, breach of Article 5(3) and Article 45 of the Staff Regulations.

---