Case T-407/03: Action brought on 17 December 2003 by Antonio Aresu against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-02-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), appointment of staff

C 35/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.2.2004

Action brought on 17 December 2003 by Antonio Aresu
against the Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 9 December 2003 by Georges Herbil-
lon against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-407/03)

(2004/C 35/29)

(Case T-411/03)

(2004/C 35/30)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities by Antonio Aresu, represented by
Sergio Diana, avvocato.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 December 2003 by Georges
Herbillon, residing in Arlon (Belgium), represented by Nicolas
Lhoëst, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

A)

annul the following two decisions:

— the express decision of the appointing authority
contained in Chantal Graykowski’s
email of
31 March 2003 stating that the the applicant’s
application in connection with the programme
‘Rotation 2003/Decentralisation (Phase 3)’ had been
rejected;

— the implied decision of the appointing authority
of 18 December 2003 rejecting the applicant’s
complaint lodged on 18 June 2003 concerning that
decision;

B)

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the decision of

the appointing authority of
23 December 2002 confirming the applicant’s initial
classification in Grade A 7;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was classified in grade A 7, step 3, upon taking
up his duties with the Commission in September 1986. The
applicant challenges the appointing authority’s decision, after
reexamination of that classification following the judgment
delivered by the Court of Justice in Case C-389/98 P Gevaert v
Commission, not to reclassify him.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:

In this action the applicant challenges the rejection of his
application for a transfer to an external delegation in connec-
tion with the programme ‘Rotation 2003/Decentralisation
(Phase 3)’.

— breach of the duty to provided reasons, in so far as the
response of
to his complaint merely
consisted of a theoretical and altogether general account;

the defendant

In support of his claims, the applicant’s sole argument relates
is that there was a complete failure to provide a statement of
reasons, and a consequent infringement of the second para-
graph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.

— the existence, in the present case, of a manifest error of
assessment consisting in both a misinterpretation of the
precedent set in Alexopoulou and in a stereotypical and
superficial analysis of his own circumstances, so far as
concerned the criteria relating to exceptional qualifi-
cations and the special needs of the service.