Case T-97/01: Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Christos Gogos against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-06-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition (EU), equal treatment, staff assessment

30.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 186/17

Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support

The applicants oppose the appointment, with effect from
1 July 2001, of the new Secretary General of the Court of
Auditors.

In support of their claim, they rely on the following pleas:

— Legal errors in the vacancy notice for the post in that,
whilst the vacancy notice indicated that the successful
candidate would be paid on the basis of salary scale A1,
the Court subsequently envisaged proposing that the post
at issue should be an ‘unclassified’ post. Moreover, the
condition regarding relevant experience and the condition
concerning ability to assume responsibility for manage-
ment of an organisation with numerous staff do not meet
the requirements of precision and accuracy.

— Manifest error of assessment of criteria in that,

in
particular, the Court used grade A6/A7 as the basis for
calculating the requisite 15 years’ experience.

— Infringement of procedure in the selection of candidates
in that none of them was called to an interview even
though such an interview was provided for in the vacancy
notice.

— Manifest error of assessment in the choice of the success-

ful candidate.

Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Christos Gogos against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-97/01)

(2001/C 186/26)

(Language of the case: Greek)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 May 2001 by Christos Gogos,
assistant administrator at the Commission, represented by
Professor Kharis Tagaras, Lawyer, Sagia Chambers, Likavit-
tou 5, Athens 106 72.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul:

(1)

the decision of the appointing authority of the
defendant, as recorded and notified to the applicant
by letter of 30 June 2000 under reference num-
ber 1847, to invite him to a fresh oral test in internal
competition COM/A/17/96 following the annulling
judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 Febru-
ary 2000 (Case T-95/98);

(2)

(3)

the decision of the selection board for that compe-
tition, as recorded and notified to the applicant by
the defendant’s letter of 17 October 2000 under
reference number 2556, to give the applicant a fail
mark in the abovementioned fresh oral test and not
to include him on the list of successful candidates;

the defendant’s reply of 20 February 2001 rejecting
the administrative complaints under reference num-
bers R/502/00 and R/627/00 submitted by the
applicant against the first two contested measures
referred to above;

(4)

all other
defendant;

related enforceable measures of

the

— order

payment

to
EUR 50 000 for the material and non-material harm
caused to the applicant by the abovementioned measures;

compensation

amounting

of

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Grounds for annulment and main arguments

The applicant’s allegations against the defendant are as follows:

C l a i m f o r a n n u l m e n t

— Infringement of Article 233 EC, independently and in
conjunction with the infringement of the principle of
equal treatment and of the rules governing the operation
of selection boards:

(a)

(b)

the method chosen by the defendant for complying
with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
23 February 2000 was inconsistent with Article 233
EC (and with the abovementioned principle and
rules);

it would have been lawful to comply with the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 Febru-
ary 2000 by including the applicant on the list of
successful candidates without fresh tests:

(i)

(ii)

the argument arising from the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of 23 February 2000;

rebuttal of the defendant’s submissions that
entry on the list of successful candidates with-
out a fresh oral test is contrary to Community
law;

(iii)

the applicant’s general performance in the
tests in competition COM/A/17/96 and the
principle of proportionality;

C 186/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.6.2001

— Infringement of the principle of equal treatment

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

infringement because the composition of the selec-
tion board varied and it was unable to carry out a
valid comparison of the candidates;

infringement because of the time which had passed
since the original test period of December 1997;

infringement because the applicant (and he alone)
was examined by all the regular and substitute
members of the selection board;

infringement regarding the ratio of members of
the selection board appointed by the appointing
authority to members appointed by the personnel
committee;

— Infringement of the rules governing the operation of

selection boards

(a)

(b)

infringement because the composition of the selec-
tion board varied;

infringement because the regular and substitute
members participated on the selection board simul-
taneously;

(c)

infringement because the requirement for impar-
tiality was not observed.

C l a i m f o r c o m p e n s a t i o n

The sum sought by the applicant in compensation amounts to
EUR 50 000 .

Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Filippos Pierros v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-98/01)

(2001/C 186/27)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 4 May
2001 by Filippos Pierros, residing in Brussels, represented by
the lawyers Georges Vandersanden and Laue Levi.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 23 June
2000 classifying the applicant in Grade 5, Step 3, and, so
far as may be necessary, annul the implied decision
rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

— Order the defendant to pay the balance of pay corre-
sponding to the difference between the remuneration of
a person in Grade A, Step 3, and that of a person in the
grade above, together with interest thereon at the rate of
8 % per annum as from 1 March 2000;

— Order the defendant to pay damages, calculated pro-
visionally on an ex aequo et bono basis, as EUR 1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support

The applicant contests the decision of the appointing authority
to classify him in Grade A 5, step 3. He contends that the
appointing authority did not comply with Article 31(2) and
Article 32 of the Staff Regulations. According to the applicant,
the appointing authority took no account of his experience or
his exceptional qualifications, nor of the specific requirements
of the service, when deciding on his grade and the step.

The applicant also alleges infringement of the principle of non-
discrimination by the appointing authority. He was classified
in Grade A 5, Step 3, despite his experience or his exceptional
qualifications, yet other persons, without exceptional qualifi-
cations, were classified in the same grade and step. Likewise,
there was discrimination between the applicant and the
other persons to whom the appointing authority applied
Article 32(2) of the Staff Regulations even though the profile
of such persons was less exceptional. According to the
applicant, the principle of non-discrimination is not upheld by
Articles 31 and 32 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant
alleges discrimination between persons who have acquired
experience within the institutions and thous who have acquired
experience outside the Communities as far as deciding on a
person’s grade and step is concerned.

The applicant also alleges infringement of the duty to have
regard for the interests of its staff, infringement of the rules on
the free movement of persons and, finally, a breach of the
obligation to state reasons.