Action brought on 9 February 2004 by Carlos Leite Mateus against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), professional career, promotion, staff assessment

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/53

The applicant claims that the Court should:

In support of his claims he relies on pleas of:

— annul the decision of 4 April 2003 in which the Commis-
sion draws up a definitive staff report for the applicant for
the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001;

— breach of the obligation to state grounds;

— a manifest error of assessment;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant the amount of
EUR 1, as symbolic compensation for damage suffered as
the result of the delay in drawing up his staff report and
the detriment to his reasonable career prospects;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant in this case challenges the measure by which the
Commission drew up his staff report for the period 1999-
2001.

In support of his claims, he alleges:

— The existence of a manifest error of assessment and of
inconsistency between the general and analytical assess-
ments in that the assessor did not taken into account the
reference framework specific to the applicant's grade. Speci-
fically, the duties which he performed fall within a grade
higher than his actual grade;

— Infringement of the obligation to state reasons;

— Infringement of the obligation to draw up an annual report
within a reasonable period, to the detriment of the appli-
cant's reasonable career prospects.

Action brought on 9 February 2004 by Carlos Leite
Mateus against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-51/04)

(2004/C 94/142)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 February 2004 by Carlos Leite
Mateus, residing in Zaventem (Belgium), represented by Sébas-
tien Orlandi, Albert Coolen,
Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of 14 March 2003 drawing up the
applicant's career development report for 2001-2002;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant disputes his career development report for the
period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002.

— breach of the general provisions for implementing Article
43 of the Staff Regulations, in that, first, the decision of the
appeal assessor to downgrade the assessment of the appli-
cant's skills was erroneously based on tasks which were not
his responsibility and were not required by his post, and,
second, there were inconsistencies between the comments
and the marks awarded.

Action brought on 12 February 2004 by Luis Escobar
Guerrero against Commission of the European Commu-
nities

(Case T-52/04)

(2004/C 94/143)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 February 2004 by Luis Escobar
Guerrero, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Sébastien
Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul the Commission's decision to promote the applicant
to Grade A5 for the promotion year 2002 in so far as the
date on which it takes effect is fixed at 1 May 2003;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following the Commission's decision to promote him to Grade
A5, the applicant withdrew his action in Case T-92/03 against
the decision not to promote him during the 2002 promotion
procedure. In the present case, the applicant claims that the
Commission was required to promote him to Grade A5 with
effect from 1 April 2002 on the same terms as the other offi-
cials promoted to that grade in the 2002 promotion procedure.

In support of his action, the applicant claims that there has
been a breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-
discrimination, a breach of the principle that officials should
have reasonable career prospects and also failure to implement
in good faith the Commission's decision to deal favourably
with the complaint forming the subject-matter of Case T-92/
03.