Case T-165/04: Action brought on 3 May 2004 by Hippocrate Vounakis against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-07-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), professional career, regulations for civil servants, report, staff assessment

10.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/13

Action brought on 24 April 2004 by Davide Rovetta
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-159/04)

(2004/C 179/25)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 April 2004 by Davide Rovetta,
represented by Maurizio Gambardella, lawyer.

procedural requirements, inadequate statement of reasons and
manifest error of assessment. The applicant points out, more-
over, in that connection, that the basic decision on grading of
1983, as amended by the decision of 7 February 1996, was
misapplied.

Finally, the applicant alleges unlawfulness of the system of dele-
gation of powers of the appointing authority by the College, in
the context of grading, inasmuch as it is in breach of the prin-
ciples of proportionality, transparency and sound administra-
tion.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 3 May 2004 by Hippocrate Vounakis
against Commission of the European Communities

— annul the definitive decision classifying the applicant in
Grade B 5/3 of 14 May 2003 and rejecting the applicant's
request No D/77/03 that he be classified in Grade B 4;

— annul the decision, contained in the reply to complaint No
R/563/03, refusing him access to the documents of the
joint classification committee;

— award damages in the nominal amount of EUR 1 for non-
material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the
contested decision;

— order the Commission to pay to the applicant with retro-
spective effect dating from his taking up of duties as if he
had been classified in Grade B 4 in terms to be determined
by the appointing authority;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-

ings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Davide Rovetta, an official in Directorate General for taxation
and customs union, upon completing his period of probation,
applied to the appointing authority, in accordance with Article
31 of the Staff Regulations, to be classified in the higher grade
in his category, that is B 4. In his request he pointed out that
he had been engaged in order to carry out additional duties as
a lawyer in Directorate General
for taxation and customs
union, Unit A3 ‘Legal affairs and enforcement of Community
provisions’.

On receiving a reply in the negative from the appointing
authority and being appointed to Grade B 5/3, he brought a
complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against
that decision, which was expressly rejected.

that decision on the complaint and of

The applicant now seeks before the Court of First Instance the
annulment of
the
preceding decision regarding grading as well as of the refusal to
grant the access requested by him to the documents of the
joint grading committee.

In the view of the applicant, those decisions were vitiated by an
infringement of Articles 25 and 31 of the Staff Regulations,
breach of the case-law of the Court of Justice and of the Court
of First Instance on the matter and by a breach of essential

(Case T-165/04)

(2004/C 179/26)

(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 3 May 2004 by Hippocrate
Vounakis, residing at Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), repre-
sented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul

the decision establishing his career development
review for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December
2002;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant contests, on formal and substantive grounds, his
career development review for the period from 1 July 2001 to
31 December 2002.

In support of his claims, he asserts:

— infringement of Article 2 of the General Provisions imple-
menting Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant
states in that regard that the review in question was estab-
lished by a person lacking the power to do so;

— the existence, in this case, of a manifest error of assessment,
and inconsistency between the comments and the marks
awarded;

— infringement of the duty to state reasons. The applicant
asserts on that point that the overall mark awarded him
places him below the average, despite the fact that his
previous reviews were good, without any explanation for
the deterioration.