Case C-150/03 P: Appeal brought on 2 April 2003 by Chantal Hectors against the judgment delivered on 23 January 2003 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-181/01 between Chantal Hectors and European Parliament
Date: 2003-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Parliament, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), gender equality, political group, staff assessment, temporary employment

C 112/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.5.2003

Appeal brought on 2 April 2003 by Chantal Hectors
against the judgment delivered on 23 January 2003 by the
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-181/01 between Chan-
tal Hectors and European Parliament

(Case C-150/03 P)

(2003/C 112/38)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 January 2003
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-181/01 between Chantal
Hectors and European Parliament was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 April 2003
by Chantal Hectors, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
Laure Levi, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities of 23 January 2003 in Case
T-181/01 and

— accordingly, uphold the applicant’s claims at first instance

and, thus,

— annul the decision taken, on a date unknown, by
the authority empowered to conclude contracts of
employment appointing Mr A. B. to the post of
administrator in the PPE-DE Group of the European
Parliament and the decision, of unknown date,
rejecting the applicant’s candidature for that post
and,
in so far as necessary, annul the decision
rejecting the applicant’s complaint, taken on 28 May
2001;

— order the defendant to pay damages assessed at

EUR 60 554,7, subject to increment;

— order the defendant to pay the entire costs incurred

at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The Court of First Instance infringed the general obli-
gation to state the grounds on which decisions are based.

The judgment of the Court of First Instance wrongly
considers that the decision of the authority empowered
to conclude contracts of employment not to appoint the
applicant provides an adequate statement of reasons by
stating that the relevant internal rules according to which
the chairman of the political group concerned had to
choose one of the first three candidates on the list of
suitable candidates drawn up by the selection board.

— The Court of First Instance infringed Article 12 of the
Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the
European Communities.

The judgment of the Court of First Instance is wrong in
not finding that there was a manifest error of assessment
in that it was not established that an assessment of the
candidates’ qualifications had taken place.

— The Court of First Instance disregarded the principle of

equal treatment.

The judgment of the Court of First Instance wrongly
considers that the applicant has not established a pre-
sumption of direct or indirect discrimination on the basis
that the applicant was 6 months pregnant at the time of
the recruitment procedure.

Appeal brought on 2 April 2003 by Karl L. Meyer against
the judgment of 13 February 2003 of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
ties in Case T-333/01 K. Meyer v Commission

(Case C-151/03 P)

(2003/C 112/39)

An appeal against the judgment of 13 February 2003 of the
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-333/01 K. Meyer v Commission.
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 2 April 2003 (lodged by fax on 23 March
2003) by Karl L. Meyer, represented by Jean-Dominique des
Arcis.

— The Court of First Instance disregarded the principle
‘patere quam ipse legem fecisti’ and the principle of
legality.

The judgment of the Court of First Instance wrongly
considers that the authority empowered to conclude
contracts of employment has unfettered discretion to
organise interviews with the candidates when neither the
internal rules on the recruitment of members of the
temporary staff nor the vacancy notice provide for them.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside paragraphs 38, 39 and 40 of the judgment of

the Court of First Instance;

— amend and correct accordingly paragraphs 41 to 47 of

the judgment;

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred at first

instance and on appeal.