Case T-181/01: Action brought on 6 August 2001 by Chantal Hectors against the European Parliament
Date: 2001-10-27
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), gender equality, political group, staff assessment, temporary employment

27.10.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303/19

Action brought on 6 August 2001 by Chantal Hectors
against the European Parliament

The applicant requests that the contested decisions be annulled,
alleging:

(Case T-181/01)

(2001/C 303/32)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
in Brussels,
6 August 2001 by Chantal Hectors resident
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision taken by the AHCCE, on a date
unknown, to appoint another candidate to the post of
administrator with the PPE-DE Group of the European
Parliament and the decision of unknown date not to
accept her application for that post and, in so far as
necessary, annul the decision to reject the applicant’s
complaint taken on 28 May 2001;

— order the defendant to pay damages, on a fair and
equitable basis, provisionally calculated at one Euro;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant states that, following the vacancy notice publi-
shed on 10 June 2000, for the recruitment of a temporary
agent for the post of administrator or assistant administrator
of Dutch mother tongue in the European Parliament’s Group
of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and
European Democrats, she applied for that post. At the end of
the recruitment procedure, she was informed that she had
been listed in first position on the reserve list, but that the
candidate listed in third position had been appointed to the
post in question. The applicant lodged a complaint against
those decisions (the decision not to appoint her and the
decision to appoint another candidate). The president of the
PPE-DE Group rejected that complaint, indicating that it is for
the competent authority to choose from the list drawn up by
the selection board the candidate to be appointed to the vacant
position and that that authority is not obliged to observe the
order of the list of suitable candidates drawn up in order of
merit.

— failure to fulfil the duty to state reasons;

— manifest error of assessment and breach of the interest of
the service and of Article 12 of
the Conditions of
Employment of Other Servants of the European Com-
munities (CEOS), in that there is no concrete, objective
and relevant factor to justify the contested decisions;

— breach of Articles 29 and 30 of the Staff Regulations, the
vacancy notice, and the legal maxim patere legem quam
ipse fecisti, in that the procedure currently applicable to
recruitment of staff
in the political groups was not
complied with in the present case;

— infringement of the principle of equality between men
and women, in that, first, the applicant was discriminated
against because she was pregnant, and, second,
the
principle according to which, all things being equal,
preference should be given to the recruitment of a female
official or member of staff (affirmative action), was not
observed, in so far as the candidate appointed to the
position, who was not even on an equal footing with the
applicant, is a man;

— breach of the duty to have regard to the interests of staff.

Regarding the claim for damages, the applicant states that, as
a result of the contested decisions, she has suffered material
and non-material damage. The damage is material in so far as
she was not allowed to become a member of the Community’s
staff and was consequently denied the benefits of the pecuniary
rights connected with recruitment as a member of
the
temporary staff and of all the rights and interests in terms of
career in the Community civil service. The applicant also
suffered non-material damage consisting in the total lack of
openness and in the defendant’s refusal to provide her with
the reasons for its decisions.

Action brought on 6 August 2001 by IMS Health Inc.
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-184/01)

(2001/C 303/33)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 August 2001 by IMS Health Inc.,