Case T-428/03: Action brought on 20 December 2003 by Gerhard Keinhorst against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-02-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), professional career, promotion, regulations for civil servants

C 47/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.2.2004

The applicants finally claim that the Commission has violated
fundamental principles of Community law, such as the prin-
ciple of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, the prin-
ciple of independence and excellence of scientific advice, the
principle of proportionality, the principle of equal treatment
and the principle of sound administration. The applicants also
claim that there was a lack of competence on the part of the
Commission and that the Commission misused its powers.

(1) Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approxi-
mation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating
to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous sub-
stances (OJ English special edition: Series I Chapter 1967, p. 234).

The applicant submits that the reasoning for the contested
decision is unsound and that that decision infringes the general
principle of sound administration that reasons must be stated
for decisions. The applicant also alleges infringement of
Article 5 of Appendix 2 to the Staff Regulations of Europol (1)
and infringement of the principle of due care.

(1) Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the staff regulations

applicable to Europol employees (OJ 1999 C 26, p. 7).

Action brought on 23 December 2003 by Elisabeth Saskia
Smit against Europol

(Case T-423/03)

(2004/C 47/68)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities on 23 December
2003 by Elisabeth Saskia Smit, represented by P. de Casparis
and M.F. Baltussen.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

2.

annul the implicit rejection by Europol of her objection
to the decision of 19 May 2003 and, at the same time,
annul the decision of 19 May 2003;

order Europol to pay the applicant compensation includ-
ing, in any event, the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant’s application for the post of ‘Asset Administrator’
with Europol was rejected by the contested decision.

Action brought on 20 December 2003 by Gerhard Kein-
horst against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-428/03)

(2004/C 47/69)

(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 on 20 December 2003 by Gerhard
Keinhorst, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by
Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
23 December 2002, in so far as it did not award the
applicant additional seniority and therefore reclassified
him in Grade A6, Step 1, instead of Grade A6, Step 3;

— Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated

14 April 2003, in so far as it:

— did not fix the applicant’s classification in Grade A6,

Step 3 upon recruitment,

— did not reconstruct the applicant’s career in grade
by bringing forward the date of his promotion to A5
and, if appropriate, promoting him to A4,

— limited the date on which the reclassification
decision took effect as regards its pecuniary effects
to 5 October 1995;

21.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/37

— Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
4 September 2003, notified to the applicant on 11 Sep-
tember 2003, rejecting his complaint R/173/03;

Action brought on 21 December 2003 by Iosif Dascalu
against the Commission of the European Communities

— Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
24 November 2003, notified to the applicant on
10 December 2003, rejecting his complaint R/438/03;

— Order the defendant to pay compensation set provision-
ally at a sum of EUR 125 000 in case, against all
possibility,
it should not be able to reconstruct the
applicant’s career in grade;

— Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-

ings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases
C-389/98 P and C-459/98 P, the Commission reconsidered
under Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations the classification
of officials who used remedies within the meaning of Article 91
of the Staff Regulations. Following that exercise, the Com-
mission adopted the contested decision in respect of the appt.

In support of his action, the applicant claims, as regards
additional seniority, that there has been a breach of the
Commission decisions of 6 June 1973 and 1 September 1983
on the criteria applicable to appointment in grade and to
classification in step on recruitment, a breach of Article 5(3)
of the Staff Regulations, a breach of the principle of equal
treatment and,
last, a breach of Article 25(2) of the Staff
Regulations and of the obligation to state reasons.

further claims that

The applicant
the contested decision
breaches the principle that an official should have reasonable
career prospects and Article 5(3) and Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations in that the decision does not reconstruct his career
in grade.

(Case T-430/03)

(2004/C 47/70)

(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 on 21 December 2003 by Iosif
Dascalu, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by
Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
23 December 2002, in so far as it did not award the
applicant additional seniority and therefore reclassified
him in Grade A6, Step 1, instead of Grade A6, Step 3;

— Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated

14 April 2003, in so far as it:

— did not fix the applicant’s classification in Grade A6,

Step 3 upon recruitment;

— did not reconstruct the applicant’s career in grade
by bringing forward the date of his promotions
to A5 and A4;

— limited the date on which the reclassification
decision took effect as regards its pecuniary effects
to 5 October 1995.

Last, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of
Article 62 of the Staff Regulations in that the Commission
limited the pecuniary effects of the contested decision to
5 October 1995.

— Order the defendant to pay compensation set provision-
ally at a sum of EUR 125 000 in case, against all
possibility,
it should not be able to reconstruct the
applicant’s career in grade;

— Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-

ings.