Case T-2/02: Action brought on 10 January 2002 by Guillermo Balmori Abella against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-03-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), age discrimination, competition (EU)

C 68/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.3.2002

Action brought on 27 December 2001 by Colette di
Marzio against Commission of
the European Com-
munities

Action brought on 10 January 2002 by Guillermo Balmori
Abella against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-335/01)

(2002/C 68/31)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-2/02)

(2002/C 68/32)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 December 2001 by Colette di
Marzio, residing in Ginasservis (France), represented by Georg-
es Vandersanden Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 18 July 2001, notified on 5 Septem-
ber 2001, annulling and replacing a decision of 4 January
2001 with the same purpose of transferring the applicant,
within the same Directorate General (Directorate General
for Personnel and Administration) from the External
Security Unit
in the Protocol and Security Services
Directorate to the Information Systems and Informatics
Infrastructure Unit of
for
Resources, entailing a change of place of work from
Cadarache in France to Brussels, annul,
in so far as
necessary, the decision of 4 January 2001 and annul the
decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint, taken on
17 September 2001;

the Directorate General

— order the defendant to pay damages with interest assessed,

ex æquo et bono, provisionally, at EUR 25 000;

— order the defendant to pay the entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her application, the applicant alleges disregard
for the interests of the service, manifest error of assessment
and breach of the principle to have regard for the welfare of
officials and of the general principle of respect for privacy and
family life. Finally, the applicant claims that the principle of
good management and sound administration and the principle
to have regard for the welfare of officials have been infringed.
According to the applicant, the contested decision takes no
account whatever of her personal interests and of her family
situation. Nor was the transfer decided in the interests of the
service. The applicant claims rather that her transfer is the
result of a tussle over posts between the services concerned.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 January 2002 by Guillermo
Balmori Abella, residing in Madrid, represented by Valentı´n
Playa´ Serra, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul notice of open competition COM/A/12/01 for
the constitution of a reserve for the recruitment of
administrators in the field of the management of property,
logistics and operations, issued by the Commission of the
European Communities on 23 October 2001.

Pleas in law and main arguments

is challenging notice of open competition
The applicant
COM/A/12/01 (1), inasmuch as it states, in point III(B), headed
‘Special conditions’, that ‘candidates must have been born after
30 November 1955’. The applicant claims that that provision
imposes discriminatory conditions based on age, since the age-
limit is not justified by any special characteristic of the posts
to be filled which might suggest that the work could not be
carried out by persons in the group discriminated against.
Consequently, that condition is in breach of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Funda-
mental Freedoms (Articles 5, 8 and 14), which the European
Union has undertaken to respect (Article 6(2) of the Treaty on
European Union), as well as Article 13 of the EC Treaty and
the case-law of the Court of Justice. The applicant further
states that, in addition to being illegal, such discrimination is
gravely prejudicial
to workers aged over 45, since that
approach on the part of the Community institutions helps to
create a bias against the recruitment of those workers.

(1) OJ 2001 C 269 A, p. 13.