Case T-357/00: Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Justina Martínez Alarcón against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-02-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), assistant, competition (EU), professional experience

24.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 61/15

— and to pay for all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant explains that the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (OHIM) published an advertisement for a
job as a lawyer-linguist. Before going to the trouble of sending
in a full application pack for the job, he wrote to check that
his age would not be held against him. In answer to his letter,
the OHIM sent him the application forms, stressed the
importance of relevant ‘qualifications and experience’, and
raised no objection to his age. Nevertheless, in August 2000
he was rejected on the grounds that he was a year older than
the OHIM wished.

In these circumstances, the applicant claims compensation on
the basis of the illegality of the OHIM’s decision on the grounds
of discrimination in the OHIM’s employment procedure
(ageism) and breach of vested rights and legitimate expec-
tations.

The applicant, a grade C Commission official, is contesting the
Commission’s decision refusing to admit her to the tests in
competition COM/TB/99 for the constitution of a reserve list
of administrative assistants, senior administrative assistants
and principal administrative assistants (grades B5/B4, B3/B2
and B1), on the ground that she did not possess the pro-
fessional experience required in category B.

The applicant complains that the Commission unlawfully
refused to take account of the professional experience gained
by her in a category C job at a level corresponding to the
duties to be performed.

Although the competition notice may have provided that the
candidates were to have acquired the professional experience
relating to category B,
that condition and the contested
decision taken on the basis of the notice are equally vitiated by
illegality.

Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Justina Martı´-
nez Alarco´ n against the Commission of the European
Communities

Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Antonio
Cherenti against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-357/00)

(2001/C 61/29)

(Case T-361/00)

(2001/C 61/30)

(Language of the case: French)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Justina
Martı´nez Alarco´ n, residing in Brussels, represented by Carlos
Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Antonio
Cherenti, residing at Thuin (Belgium), represented by Carlos
Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decisions dated 28 January 2000 and 24 Febru-
the selection board in competition
ary 2000 of
COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit the applicant to that
competition, and the implicit decision of the appointing
authority dated 28 August 2000 giving a negative
response to the complaint submitted by the applicant;

— annul the decision dated 28 January 2000 of the selection
board in competition COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit
the applicant
to that competition, and the implicit
decision of the appointing authority dated 7 September
2000 giving a negative response to the complaint submit-
ted by the applicant;

— alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant
the sum of BEF 3 160 000, subject to alteration during
the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation
for material and non-material damage;

— alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant
the sum of BEF 7 350 000, subject to alteration during
the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation
for material and non-material damage;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.