# C_2004300EN.01004801.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/48

---

Action brought on 28 September 2004 by Carla Piccinni-Leopardi, Carlos Martínez Mongay and Georgis Katalagarianakis against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-390/04)

(2004/C 300/93)

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 28 September 2004 by Carla Piccinni-Leopardi and Carlos Martínez Mongay, residing in Brussels, and by Georgis Katalagarianakis, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission's decision awarding merit and priority points to the applicants by way of credit for the past and the decision not to promote them to grade A 4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision awarding merit and priority points to the applicants by way of credit for the past and the decision not to promote them to grade A 4;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicants in these proceedings contest the defendant's decision not to award them specific merit or priority points in the course of the 2003 promotions procedure to take account of the modification of their classification in grade on recruitment and not to promote them to grade A 4 in the course of that procedure.

In support of their claims they plead:

| — | infringement of Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations insofar as, even though their staff reports were drawn up beforehand, the applicants were none the less subject to a blanket award of credit for past merit. The applicants point out in that connection that, in their view, the award of one transitional point for seniority in grade disregards the principle that promotion should follow a consideration of the comparative merits of officials; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations insofar as, even though their staff reports were drawn up beforehand, the applicants were none the less subject to a blanket award of credit for past merit. The applicants point out in that connection that, in their view, the award of one transitional point for seniority in grade disregards the principle that promotion should follow a consideration of the comparative merits of officials;

| — | infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination and of Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of the right to career advancement. In that regard, the applicants point out that those officials who have not been promoted for a long time because their performance was not considered sufficiently deserving, have been awarded priority points individually and will receive them in the 2004 promotions procedure. On the other hand, the applicants, whose merits, it is alleged, could not be taken into account at their true value from the start of their career, are treated in the same way as officials who were not eligible for classification in a higher grade on recruitment; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination and of Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of the right to career advancement. In that regard, the applicants point out that those officials who have not been promoted for a long time because their performance was not considered sufficiently deserving, have been awarded priority points individually and will receive them in the 2004 promotions procedure. On the other hand, the applicants, whose merits, it is alleged, could not be taken into account at their true value from the start of their career, are treated in the same way as officials who were not eligible for classification in a higher grade on recruitment;

| — | infringement of Article 233 EC. In that regard they point out that, in their view, the question which arises here is whether, since the general implementing provisions relating to the classification criteria have been declared unlawful and the Commission has undertaken to reconsider the classification of the many officials recruited under those general provisions, the decision to fix the applicants' classification on recruitment at the higher grade in the career bracket may be so restrictive as to deprive it of any useful effect. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 233 EC. In that regard they point out that, in their view, the question which arises here is whether, since the general implementing provisions relating to the classification criteria have been declared unlawful and the Commission has undertaken to reconsider the classification of the many officials recruited under those general provisions, the decision to fix the applicants' classification on recruitment at the higher grade in the career bracket may be so restrictive as to deprive it of any useful effect.

---