# C_2004300EN.01005401.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/54

---

Action brought on 10 October 2004 by Kenneth Blackler against the European Parliament

(Case T-420/04)

(2004/C 300/104)

Language of the case: French

An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 October 2004 by Kenneth Blackler, residing in Ispra (Italy), represented by Patrick Goergen, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 11 July 2004 confirming the decision of the selection board in competition PE/98/A for the establishment of a list of engineers with telecommunications expertise, to serve as a reserve list for the recruitment of Principal Administrators (A5/A4), not to admit the applicant to the oral tests of that competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 11 July 2004 confirming the decision of the selection board in competition PE/98/A for the establishment of a list of engineers with telecommunications expertise, to serve as a reserve list for the recruitment of Principal Administrators (A5/A4), not to admit the applicant to the oral tests of that competition;

| — | annul all the previous steps and measures in the competition procedure at issue; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul all the previous steps and measures in the competition procedure at issue;

| — | in the alternative, should the Court of First Instance not uphold the claim for annulment of the competition procedure, order the European Parliament to pay the applicant EUR 100 000 by way of damages for the material and non-material loss suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, should the Court of First Instance not uphold the claim for annulment of the competition procedure, order the European Parliament to pay the applicant EUR 100 000 by way of damages for the material and non-material loss suffered by the applicant;

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

—

order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in this case challenges the refusal by the selection board in open competition PE/98/A not to admit him to the oral tests on the ground that, on appraisal of his application, he was placed in 38th position and only those placed in the first 15 were admitted to the oral tests. The competition was held for the purpose of drawing up a reserve list for the recruitment of Principal Administrators with telecommunications expertise.

th

In support of his claims the applicant pleads:

| — | Infringement of the competition notice insofar as the contested decision took the length of study as a criterion for deciding the mark to be awarded in respect of the certificates submitted by the candidates, ignored certain documents submitted by the applicant when he put in his application and also failed to award marks for qualifications in accordance with the criteria required by the notice of competition. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the competition notice insofar as the contested decision took the length of study as a criterion for deciding the mark to be awarded in respect of the certificates submitted by the candidates, ignored certain documents submitted by the applicant when he put in his application and also failed to award marks for qualifications in accordance with the criteria required by the notice of competition.

| — | That there was a manifest error of assessment in this case, insofar as a miscalculation was made as to the length of the professional experience of the applicant, and a refusal to take account, in verifying whether he fulfilled at least eight of the 13 required areas of competence cited in the notice of competition, of both his published works and the details he gave of the work he had undertaken during his career. |
| --- | --- |

—

That there was a manifest error of assessment in this case, insofar as a miscalculation was made as to the length of the professional experience of the applicant, and a refusal to take account, in verifying whether he fulfilled at least eight of the 13 required areas of competence cited in the notice of competition, of both his published works and the details he gave of the work he had undertaken during his career.

---