Case T-401/03: Action brought on 12 December by Deirdre McCabe against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-02-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Eurostat, action for annulment (EU), probationary period, unfair dismissal

C 35/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.2.2004

Action brought on 8 December 2003 by Sophie Bachotet
against the Commission of the European Communities

— Breach of the duty to state reasons and a manifest error

of assessment.

(Case T-400/03)

(2004/C 35/25)

(Language of the case: French)

(1) Not yet published in the ECR.

Action brought on 12 December by Deirdre McCabe
against the Commission of the European Communities

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 December 2003 by Sophie
Bachotet, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlan-
Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal,
di, Albert Coolen,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

(Case T-401/03)

(2004/C 35/26)

(Language of the case: French)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Research selection committee
in COM/R/A/01/1999 not to include the name of the
applicant on the reserve list;

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 December 2003 by Deirdre
McCabe, residing in Mondorf-Les-Bains (Luxembourg), rep-
resented by Mario Spandre, lawyer.

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
24 September 2002 in Case T-182/01 (1), annulling the
decision of the selection board not to enter the applicant’s
name on the reserve list resulting from selection procedure
COM/R/A/01/1999 held in order to create a reserve list of
temporary agents, the applicant was invited to another oral
test. The applicant contests the final decision not to enter her
name on the list of suitable candidates following that second
oral test.

In support of her claims the applicant relies on the following
pleas:

— Breach of Article 233 EC, in so far as the selection board
organised the oral test without taking account of the
grounds and the operative part of the above judgment of
the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2002;

— Breach of the principle of equal treatment for candidates,
in so far as the selection board did not establish, before
the oral test, the criteria necessary to enable it to make an
assessment, more than two years after the first tests were
held, of the comparative merits of the applicant and the
successful candidates placed on the reserve list bearing in
mind the principle of equal treatment;

— Annul the decision to dismiss Mrs McCabe;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay compensation for wrongful dismissal;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay all the expenses and costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former probationary official at Eurostat,
contests the decision of the appointing authority not to
establish her at the end of her probationary period.

In support of her claims, she submits that her dismissal was
manifestly wrongful and, therefore, contrary to Article 34(3)
of the Staff Regulations. She claims in that connection that her
incompetence was alleged merely to prevent her
from
reporting anomalies in the management of Eurostat which
were revealed subsequently.

The decision to dismiss her is based on the various intermediate
probationary reports drawn up on her over 18 months and, in
particular, on the final report at the end of her probationary
period. The grounds stated in that report were cursory, vague
and ambiguous and based on allegations wholly without
substance.