# C_2004284EN.01002702.xml

| 20.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/27

---

Action brought on 20 September 2004 by Gregorio Valero Jordana against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-385/04)

(2004/C 284/54)

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 20 September 2004 by Gregorio Valero Jordana, residing in Brussels, represented by Massimo Merola and Isabelle van Schendel, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Director General of the Legal Service awarding him only one priority point under the 2003 promotion exercise, as is apparent from the Sysper 2 computerised system; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Director General of the Legal Service awarding him only one priority point under the 2003 promotion exercise, as is apparent from the Sysper 2 computerised system;

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority to award him a total of 20 points under the 2003 promotion exercise, as is apparent from the Sysper 2 computerised system; the list of merit of officials in grade A5 under the 2003 promotion exercise, following Promotion Committees, published in Administrative Notices No 69-2003 of 13 November 2003; the list of officials promoted to grade A4 under the 2003 exercise, published in Administrative Notices No 73-2003 of 27 November 2003; and the decision not to enter his name on those lists; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority to award him a total of 20 points under the 2003 promotion exercise, as is apparent from the Sysper 2 computerised system; the list of merit of officials in grade A5 under the 2003 promotion exercise, following Promotion Committees, published in Administrative Notices No 69-2003 of 13 November 2003; the list of officials promoted to grade A4 under the 2003 exercise, published in Administrative Notices No 73-2003 of 27 November 2003; and the decision not to enter his name on those lists;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant in the present case objects to the award of one priority point under the 2003 evaluation exercise and also to the appointing authority's refusal to promote him to grade A4 for the same exercise.

In support of his claims, he asserts first of all that Article 45 of the Staff Regulations requires that merit be the determining criterion for the award of priority points by the Directorate General and for promotion. None the less, in the system called in question in the present case, promotions are determined by the award of priority points, on the proposal of each Directorate General or Promotion Committee, without a comparative examination of the merits of all officials eligible for promotion in each grade. Consequently, Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Commission's decision of 26 April 2002 on the general provisions for the implementation of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations (DGE) breach Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. Furthermore, by awarding to each Directorate General a uniform quota of points per official, those rules prevent the appointing authority from carrying out that comparative examination.

The applicant states in that regard that the contested decisions are the result of the criteria established in the Legal Service for the award of priority points, which lead to those points being awarded in priority to officials with the most seniority in grade, irrespective of their merits. Such an approach constitutes a misuse of power, since it seeks to bring about the promotion of the largest number and the preparation of promotions for future years, i.e. to achieve an aim different from that envisaged by the Staff Regulations, which is to reward merit.

The applicant further relies on two procedural defects, in so far as the award of the priority points in issue was, he alleges, decided in the absence of a proposal from the Directorate of the Legal Service and in breach of the duty to state reasons.

The applicant also claims that there has been a breach of the principle that an official should have reasonable career prospects and that Articles 9, 12(3) and 13 of the DGE are illegal.

---