Case T-188/01: Action brought on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios Tsarnavas against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-11-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), administrator, equal treatment, promotion, regulations for civil servants

C 317/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.11.2001

Action brought on 8 August 2001 by Nicole Robert
against European Parliament

European Communities on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios
Tsarnavas, resident in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

(Case T-186/01)

(2001/C 317/58)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
8 August 2001 by Nicole Robert, of Strassen, Luxembourg,
represented by Alain Lorang,
lawyer, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decisions taken by the Director-General of
Personnel on 26 November 1999 promoting certain
other officials from grade B2 to grade B1, in that they
were reached without opening or publishing vacant posts
for principal assistants and with an incorrect comparison
of the merits;

— annul the decision of 23 May 2001 by which the President
of the European Parliament rejected her complaint of
29 February 2000;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official
in grade B 2 at the Parliament,
contests the Parliament’s decision not to include her amongst
the officials actually promoted by decision of the Director-
General of Personnel of 26 November 1999.

She alleges that the promotion system in force at the Parlia-
ment and the method used in order to apply it are unlawful.
She submits that the Parliament adopted a decision contrary
to Articles 4, 5, 7, second paragraph, 9 and 45 and Annex 1
to the Staff Regulations. Moreover, because of the procedure
adopted by the Parliament, seniority prevails over merit,
contrary to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, which can lead
to discrimination against officials who have obtained very high
marks in their staff reports in comparison with those who
have obtained lower marks in their reports.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the decision adopted by the Commission on
21 September 2000 in that it decides that the applicant’s
name should not be included on the list of grade A5
officials considered the most deserving of promotion
under the 1998 promotions procedure and, as a result,
that the applicant should not be promoted to grade A4
under the 1998 promotions procedure;

— in so far as necessary, annul the Commission’s implied
decision rejecting the complaint submitted by the appli-
cant on 27 December 2000 under Article 90(2) of the
Staff Regulations;

— consequently annul the 1998 A4 promotions procedure

with regard to the applicant;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs of the action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant alleges a lack of
reasoning in the contested decision, breach of Articles 26, 43
and 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the principles of equal
treatment and sound administration and a manifest error of
assessment.

Action brought on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios Tsarnavas
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-190/01)

(2001/C 317/60)

(Language of the case: French)

Action brought on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios Tsarnavas
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-188/01)

(2001/C 317/59)

(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

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios
Tsarnavas, resident in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission decision of 29 September 2000
lodged by the applicant
not
contesting the list of names put forward for promotion
to grade A4 under the 2000 promotions procedure in

to uphold the appeal