Case T-430/03: Action brought on 21 December 2003 by Iosif Dascalu 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

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.

C 47/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.2.2004

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant, who was classified in Grade A7, Step 3, upon
entering the service of the Commission in September 1986,
challenges the decision of the appointing authority, adopted
following a reconsideration of that classification following the
judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-389/98 P Gevaert v
Commission, to reclassify him in Step 1 of Grade A6, instead
of Step 3 of that grade, and revising and setting at new dates
his subsequent classification in Grade A5, Step 2, and A4,
Step 2, and limiting the pecuniary effects of that reclassification
to 5 October 1995.

In support of his claims, action, the applicant claims that the
Commission has breached:

— the decisions of 6 June 1973 and 1 September 1983 in
so far as it omitted to grant the applicant the slightest
seniority in step, and also Article 5(3) of
the Staff
Regulations in so far as the Commission applied to the
applicant a different outcome from that of officials in the
same category;

— Articles 5(3) and 45 of the Staff Regulations by refusing
to reconstruct his career in grade following his reclassifi-
cation in Grade A6, and breach of the duty to have regard
to the welfare of officials;

— Article 62 of the Staff Regulations by limiting in time the

pecuniary effects of his reclassification.

— Annul the decision of the selection board in competition
COM/TB/99 to award the applicant an insufficient mark
in the oral test to allow him to be entered on the reserve
list;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance on
13 March 2002 in Case T-364/00 Van Weyenbergh, the
applicant in the present case, as in Case T-161/01, objects to
the decision of the selection board in competition COM/TB/
99 constituting a reserve list of administrative assistants,
senior administrative assistants and principal administrative
assistants, in Grades B5/B4, B3/B2 and B1 respectively, not to
enter him on the reserve list in that competition on the ground
that he was awarded an insufficient mark in the oral test.

In support of his claims, he alleges that there has been a
breach of the principles of non-discrimination and proper
administration and also a manifest error of assessment.

The applicant criticises the method used by the selection board
to assess his knowledge of languages and claims, in particular,
that he was unable to ascertain whether the questions put
during the oral test correspond to the level of the competition
B5/B4, B3/B2 or B1.

Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Liam O’Bra-
daigh against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Jean Dehon
against the European Parliament

(Case T-431/03)

(2004/C 47/71)

(Case T-432/03)

(2004/C 47/72)

(Language of the case: French)

(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 22 December 2003 by Liam
O’Bradaigh, residing in Mechelen (Belgium), represented by
Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 22 December 2003 by Jean Dehon, residing in Hagen
(Luxembourg),
represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.