Case T-175/03: Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Norbert Schmitt against European Agency for Reconstruction
Date: 2003-08-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Agency for Reconstruction, European official, action for annulment (EU), staff assessment, unfair dismissal

2.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/41

Action brought on 20 May 2003 by Franco Cozzani against
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-174/03)

(2003/C 184/91)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 May 2003 by Franco Cozzani,
residing in Brussels, represented by Éric Boigelot, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 14 August 2002 of the authority
empowered to conclude contracts of employment not to
include the applicant's name on the list of officials and
remunerated under
temporary staff
members of
research credits eligible for promotion/regrading in 2002,
which was published in the Administrative Notices of
14 August 2002 (IA 70-2002);

the

— in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 16 August
2002 of the authority empowered to conclude contracts
of employment of 16 August 2002 to promote or regrade
to A4 officials and members of
the temporary staff
remunerated under research credits appearing in the list
published in Administrative Notices of 14 August 2002
(IA 71-2002);

— annul the implied rejection of the applicant's complaint,
which was submitted in accordance with Article 90(2) of
the Staff Regulations on 11 November 2002, entered in
the register that day under No R/573/02, seeking the
annulment of the contested decision;

— in consequence of those annulments, add the applicant's
name to the list of eligible officials and regrade him to
Grade A4 in the 2002 promotions procedure;

— order the defendant to pay him EUR 15 000 in damages
for non-material damage and for having damaged his
career;

— order the defendant to pay the costs, in accordance with
Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
of the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations
consisting in an alleged failure to provide reasons for
the
decision not to promote him, infringement of Articles 10 and
15 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the

European Communities, manifest error of assessment and an
alleged breach of the principle of equal treatment, the principle
that officials
the
principle that legitimate expectations should be protected and
of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

should have reasonable career prospects,

Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Norbert Schmitt
against European Agency for Reconstruction

(Case T-175/03)

(2003/C 184/92)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against European Agency for Reconstruction was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 21 May 2003 by Norbert Schmitt, residing in
Köllerbach (Germany), represented by Lothar Polanz, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the dismissal of 25 February 2003 by the Director

of the European Agency for Reconstruction;

in the alternative

— order

the defendant

to pay damages to the applicant
to two years' salary to compensate him for

equivalent
the financial loss resulting from having lost his job;

— order the European Agency for Reconstruction to pay the

entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in these proceedings challenges the termination
for an indefinite term
the contract
by the defendant of
between them.

In support of his claims, he alleges that the manner in which
contrary to the general principles
he was dismissed is
in particular the
governing the European civil service and,
general principles of
legality legitimate expectations, sound
administration and proportionality. The applicant also refers
to the fact that the administrative authority did not call him to
interview prior to the dismissal.

The applicant also alleges failure to provide a statement of
reasons.