Case T-34/01: Action brought on 14 February 2001 by Anna Maria Roccato (Mrs Pinson) against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-04-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, access to EU information, action for annulment (EU), administrative transparency, assistant, competition (EU)

C 108/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.4.2001

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The measure to which the contested decision relates is laid
down by Article 14 of the Norma Foral No 5/1993 of the
Territorio Histo´ rico de Bizkaia of 24 June 1993 concerning
urgent fiscal measures in support of investment and the
promotion of economic activity, which provides for an
exemption from corporation tax for certain newly formed
undertakings.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-30/01.

Action brought on 14 February 2001 by Anna Maria
Roccato (Mrs Pinson) against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-34/01)

(2001/C 108/51)

(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 14 February 2001 by Anna Maria
Roccato (Mrs Pinson), represented by Georges Vandersanden
and Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the selection board in competition
COM/PB/99 of 8 March 2000 excluding the applicant
from the oral test in the competition;

— annul all steps taken and to be taken in the competition;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

The applicant, an official classified in grade C 1, step 8, is
challenging the refusal of the selection board in internal
competition COM/PB/99 for movement from category C to
category B to admit her to the oral test in that competition.

She points out in that regard that, by letter of 8 March 2000,
the chairman of the selection board informed the applicant
that she had not been admitted to the oral test because of her
marks in the written test, which, despite being higher than the
minimum required (30 out of 50), were not such as to place
her within the 170 best candidates, who were the only ones
permitted to take part in the oral test. In order to be included
amongst those 170 best candidates, it was necessary to obtain
a mark totalling at least 30.25.

In support of her application, the applicant pleads:

— infringement of the obligation to provide a statement of
reasons and of the general principle of transparency. The
applicant states in that connection that the principle of
transparency precludes a refusal to provide a candidate in
a competition with documents and answers relating to
matters outside the ambit of an assessment of
the
comparative merits of the candidates;

— infringement of the rules governing the work done by the
selection board, and the commission of a manifest error
of assessment in the present case;

— infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and
misuse of powers in the present case. In that regard, the
applicant, who reached the end of her career bracket on
1 February 1988, speculates that the reason for her
exclusion from the oral test may lie in the fact that the
selection board in the competition may have been biased
in favour of younger officials having, in consequence,
longer-term career prospects than she.