Case T-161/04: Action brought on 26 April 2004 by Gregorio Valero Jordana against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-04-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, access to EU information, action for annulment (EU), administrator, appointment of staff, competition (EU)

C 168/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.6.2004

Action brought on 22 April 2004 by Joël De Bry against
Commission of the European Communities

Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

(Case T-157/04)

(2004/C 168/22)

(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 22 April 2004 by Joël De Bry,
residing in Woluwe-St-Lambert
represented by
Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

(Belgium),

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul

the decision establishing his career development

report covering the period 1 July to 31 December 2002;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant states first of all that he
was assessed by an assessor of the same grade as himself who
was competing with the applicant for promotion. In the appli-
cant's submission, that fact gives rise to a conflict of interests
on the part of his assessor. The assessor did not inform the
appointing authority of the position, contrary to Article 14 of
the Staff Regulations.

then claims that

The applicant
there is an inconsistency
between the assessments in the contested report and the marks
awarded to him. He also claims that there has been a breach of
the obligation to state reasons and of the rights of the defence
in connection with a comment made by the validator
concerning the applicant's alleged failure to observe normal
working hours.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul

the decision of

the appointing authority not

to

renew his contract as a temporary servant;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is challenging the appointing authority's refusal
to renew his contract as a member of the temporary staff.

In that regard, it is made clear that the contested decision is
based exclusively on the policy limiting the services of non-
permanent staff in force in DG RTD, which has the effect of
excluding from the scope of recruitment all servants with more
than six years' seniority in the service of the Commission,
seniority which is greater than that of other servants allowed to
take part.

subparagraph of Article 12(1) of

In the applicant's submission, that limitation is contrary to the
first
the Conditions of
Employment of other servants, which states that recruitment is
to be directed to securing for the institution the service of
persons of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integ-
rity.
is also contrary to the decision of DG ADMIN to
authorise the extension of contracts of temporary servants 2(b)
(operating budget) or 2(d) (research budget) of short duration
until 30 April 2004.

It

In support of his claims, the applicant further alleges breach of
the principle of non-discrimination and also misuse of powers
in the present case.

Action brought on 26 April 2004 by Gregorio Valero
Jordana against Commission of the European Commu-
nities

Action brought on 26 April 2004 by Gerasimos Pota-
mianos against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-160/04)

(2004/C 168/23)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-161/04)

(2004/C 168/24)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 April 2004 by Gerasimos Pota-
represented by
mianos,

residing in Brimbergen (Belgium),

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 April 2004 by Gregorio Valero
Jordana, residing in Brussels, represented by Massimo Merola,
lawyer.

26.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/13

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 10 February 2004 by which the Euro-
to the
pean Commission refused the applicant access
reserve list for general competition A7/A6 COM/A/637 and
the individual decisions appointing officials in Grade A 6
from 5 October 1995;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in these proceedings contests the defendant's
decision denying him access to the reserve list for general
competition A7/A6 COM/A/637 and the individual decisions
appointing officials in Grade A 6 from 5 October 1995.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges, first, misapplica-
tion of the exception under Article 4(1)(b) Regulation (EC) No
1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament,
and Commission documents (1). That
Council
exception
concerns privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particu-

lar in accordance with Community legislation regarding the
protection of personal data. The applicant states,
in that
connection, that it cannot be considered that the disclosure of
the documents requested could infringe the privacy of the
persons whose names appear in them, since belonging to the
civil service is not a matter falling within the scope of privacy.

Moreover, to the extent that individual decisions regarding the
appointment of European civil servants are in the public
domain, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 5(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of indi-
viduals with regard to the processing of personal data by the
Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement
of such data (2). The applicant also alleges failure to fulfil the
obligation to provide reasons and breach of the principle of
sound administration.

(1) OJL 145, 31/05/2000, p. 43.
(2) OJL 8, 12/01/2001, p. 1.