# C_2005106EN.01003502.xml

| 30.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/35

---

Action brought on 14 February 2005 by Jacques Wunenburger against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-71/05)

(2005/C 106/72)

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 14 February 2005 by Jacques Wunenburger, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the draft staff report for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999, transmitted to the applicant on 22 March 2002; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the draft staff report for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999, transmitted to the applicant on 22 March 2002;

| 2. | annul the draft staff report for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001, transmitted to the applicant on 22 March 2002; |
| --- | --- |

2.

annul the draft staff report for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001, transmitted to the applicant on 22 March 2002;

| 3. | award compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the absence of staff reports in the applicant's personal file for the reporting periods 1997-1999 and 1999-2001 and the effect on his career, that damage being assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 9 996, subject to any increase during the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

3.

award compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the absence of staff reports in the applicant's personal file for the reporting periods 1997-1999 and 1999-2001 and the effect on his career, that damage being assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 9 996, subject to any increase during the proceedings;

| 4. | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant asserts that since the reporting period 1997-1999 he has been unable to obtain final staff reports.

He observes in this respect that it is settled case-law that a staff report may not be annulled solely on the ground that it has been drawn up late, unless exceptional circumstances are present; such circumstances could be constituted by a delay in drawing up the reports that is so great that the reporters can no longer remember the work done. That is the case with the draft staff reports at issue.

In support of his application, the applicant submits:

| — | Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 225 and Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations, and of the general implementing provisions relating to the application of Article 43 of those regulations, concerning the procedure for drawing up staff reports; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 225 and Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations, and of the general implementing provisions relating to the application of Article 43 of those regulations, concerning the procedure for drawing up staff reports;

| — | Abuse of powers in the present case; |
| --- | --- |

—

Abuse of powers in the present case;

| — | Disregard of certain general principles of law, such as respect for the rights of the defence, the principle of sound administration, the protection of legitimate expectations, compliance with the duty to have care, the principle of equal treatment, and the principles which require the appointing authority to take decisions only on the basis of legally admissible grounds, that is, grounds which are relevant and not vitiated by manifest errors of assessment of the facts or the law. |
| --- | --- |

—

Disregard of certain general principles of law, such as respect for the rights of the defence, the principle of sound administration, the protection of legitimate expectations, compliance with the duty to have care, the principle of equal treatment, and the principles which require the appointing authority to take decisions only on the basis of legally admissible grounds, that is, grounds which are relevant and not vitiated by manifest errors of assessment of the facts or the law.

---