Case T-352/00: Action brought on 20 November 2000 by Andrew M. Rosemarine against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Date: 2001-02-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU office or agency, appeal to the Court (EU), competition (EU), distribution by age

C 61/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.2.2001

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Action brought on 16 November 2000 by Giorgio Lebedef
against the Commission of the European Communities

In support of his application, the applicant pleads:

(Case T-349/00)

(2001/C 61/27)

— infringement of the framework agreement concluded
between the Commission and the OSPs in 1974, on
account of the absence of any objective examination of
the representativity of the OSPs and a manifest error in
the comparative assessment of that representativity;

— breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-

discrimination;

(Language of the case: French)

— breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate

interests;

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 November 2000 by Giorgio
Lebedef, residing at Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented
by Gilles Bouneou, of the Luxembourg Bar.

— infringement of the rights of the defence;

— breach of the principle prohibiting arbitrary methods, of
the obligation to provide a statement of reasons and of
the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
officials;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— abuse of powers and improper exercise of authority.

— annul the ‘Operational Rules on the consultation levels,
the consultation body and related procedures’ agreed
between the majority of the trade unions/staff associ-
ations (‘the OSPs’) and the administration of the Com-
mission on 19.1.2000;

— alternatively, annul the composition of the consultation
body as provided for by those rules in so far as it
excludes the trade union ‘Action & Défense’ from such
consultations;

— annul the Commission’s decision of 17.2.2000 refusing
to grant the applicant leave to attend, on a mission basis,
the meeting of the ‘Ad hoc working group on staff reports
and proposals for the promotion of staff on secondment
and staff elected or designated to fulfil certain functions’
or to engage on the same basis in any other activity in
the context of staff representation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official, seeks annulment of the
operational rules in issue on the ground that they exclude
from the consultation body the trade union known as ‘Action
& Défense’, of which he is a one of the leaders. He also seeks
annulment of an individual decision taken against him,
refusing to grant him leave to engage in his trade-union
activities on a mission basis on the ground that such missions
must be restricted exclusively to the OSPs represented on the
consultation body.

Action brought on 20 November 2000 by Andrew M.
Rosemarine against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market

(Case T-352/00)

(2001/C 61/28)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 20 November 2000 by
Andrew M. Rosemarine, represented by James Davis, of the
Aire Centre, London.

The applicant claims that the Court should order the OHIM to:

— compensate for:

— the sum of the value of the job

— the loss of enjoyment of having a job in Alicante

— the inconvenience of these appeals to the OHIM and

the Court;

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.