Case C-427/02 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2002 by Giuseppe Di Pietro against the order delivered on 27 September 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-254/01 between Giuseppe Di Pietro and Court of Auditors of the European Communities
Date: 2003-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Court of Auditors, General Court (EU), access to EU information, action for annulment (EU), appointment of staff, professional qualifications

C 19/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.1.2003

the meaning of Article 4(2) of those Directives, the staff
concerned retain the right to request termination of that
relationship according to the detailed rules in the relevant
provisions?

cations, annul the decision of the Court of Auditors in
that respect and adopt any appropriate consequent
measure;

( 1) Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of
undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ L 61 of
05.03.1977, p. 26).

( 2) Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 amending Directive
77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the
event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses
(OJ L 201 of 17.07.1998, p. 88).

the laws of

( 3) Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approxi-
mation of
the Member States relating to the
safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of
undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses
(OJ L 82 of 22.03.2001, p. 16).

— acquire the documents submitted by the end of the period
prescribed by the notice confirming the claims made
relating to whether Mr. Hervé meets all the requirements;

— in any event, find that the requirements do not comply
with the requirements objectively discernable from the
competition notice, annul Mr Hervé’s appointment and
adopt any appropriate consequent measure;

— in the event that the applicant’s is the only candidature
suited to the post and meeting the requirements to have
been put forward for appointment as Secretary General
of the Court of Auditors, declare that Mr Di Pietro is
entitled to be appointed Secretary General, in view of the
fact that the notice did not reserve a discretion to the
Court regarding the appointment of those candidates
deemed suitable;

— order the reimbursement of the costs and fees disbursed
by the applicant and compensation for the damage
suffered as a result of not being appointed to the post.

Appeal brought on 25 November 2002 by Giuseppe Di
Pietro against the order delivered on 27 September 2002
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-254/01 between
Giuseppe Di Pietro and Court of Auditors of the European
Communities

Pleas and main arguments

(Case C-427/02 P)

(2003/C 19/35)

An appeal against the order delivered on 27 September 2002
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-254/01 between Giuseppe
Di Pietro and Court of Auditors of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 25 November 2002 by Giuseppe Di Pietro,
represented by Giuseppe Monforte, whose chambers are in
Messina.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

The applicant challenges the fact that the Court of First
Instance declared his application manifestly inadmissible and
upheld the objection of
the Court of Auditors that his
statement of 2 August 2001 cannot be deemed to be a
complaint.

According to the Court of First Instance,
in his letter of
2 August 200 the applicant does not challenge the legality of
the decision which adversely affects him nor does it seek any
means of settling the dispute out of court. Instead, it merely
sets out a number of questions and requires the production of
a number of documents. Therefore the aforementioned letter
cannot be deemed a complaint within the meaning of
Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

— acquire the documents relating to the candidates admitted

to the examination;

The applicant argues that the Court of First Instance is wrong
in that his statement of 2 August 2001 contains a request that
action be taken.

— find that the documents do not comply with the require-
ments objectively discernable from the competition
notice, declare inadmissible the non-complying appli-