Case T-361/03: Action brought on 27 October 2003 by Philippe Vanlangendonck against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-01-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition (EU), discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment

10.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/41

Action brought on 27 October 2003 by Philippe Van-
langendonck against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-361/03)

(2004/C 7/75)

(Language of the case: French)

An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 27 October 2003 against
the Commission of the European Communities by Philippe
Vanlangendonck, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented
by Bernard Laurent, Lawyer.

The applicant claims that Court of First Instance should:

— verify the legality of the rejection of complaints Nos R/
134/03 and R/139/03 registered by ADMIN. B2 —
Appeals Unit, on 27 March 2003, adopted by the acting
Director of EPSO in his capacity of appointing authority
on 17 July 2002, notified by letter sent on 25 July 2003
and received on 28 July 2003 in relation to a refusal to
annul or amend a published list of successful candidates
in competition COM/A/10/01 which was manifestly
vitiated by errors or irregularities;

— verify the legality of the refusal by the Chairman of the
selection board in competition COM/A/10/01 and the
appointing authority to explain and disclose objective
and relevant information;

— order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 400 000 to
the applicant by way of damages for the loss suffered
(subject to increase or decrease of that sum in the course
of the proceedings).

— breach of the principle of the rule of law and of the EC
Treaty since, contrary to the opinion of the chairman of
the selection board, the Director of EPSO stated that the
competition notice does not allow for the possibility of
an oral test on an ex aequo basis, even though it is settled
case-law that the selection board is bound by the terms
of the competition notice;

— breach of the principle of equal treatment of candidates.
The applicant asks in that connection why the selection
board, which performed its duties perfectly well
in
selecting and comparing the merits of candidates ranging
from best to 149th in order of merit, suddenly proved
incapable of comparing and making a selection among
seven candidates on an ex aequo basis.

Action brought on 4 November 2003 by Rafael de
Bustamante Tello against the Council of the European
Union

(Case T-368/03)

(2004/C 7/76)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 4 November 2003 by Rafael de Bustamante
Tello, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by D. Ramón
García-Gallardo and M. Dolores Domínguez Pérez, lawyers.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant takes exception to the administration’s refusal
to annul or amend a published list of successful candidates in
competition COM/A/10/01 which was manifestly vitiated by
errors or irregularities and the refusal to provide information
as asked for by the applicant to enable him to consider whether
or not he has been the subject of discrimination on grounds
of his nationality in the course of the procedure and the
compilation of results of the oral test in the abovementioned
competition.

— annul

the Council decision of 28 July 2003 which
dismisses the claim of 14 April 2003 in that it does not
recognise the right to receive an expatriation allowance
and, accordingly, other related allowances;

— order the defendant to pay the full costs.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— a manifest error of law or of fact in that the selection
board placed 156 people on the list of successful
candidates rather than the 150 prescribed by the compe-
tition notice;

The applicant in the present case challenges the failure of the
appointing authority to recognise the right to an expatriation
allowance and other related allowances (Article 4 of Annex VII
to the Staff Regulations).