Case T-145/04: Action brought on 16 April 2004 by Elisabetta Righini against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-07-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), appointment of staff, recruitment, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment, traineeship

C 179/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.7.2004

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Action brought on 16 April 2004 by Elisabetta Righini
against the Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 26 April 2004 by TQ3 Travel Solutions
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-145/04)

(2004/C 179/20)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-148/04)

(2004/C 179/21)

(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 16 April 2004 by Elisabetta
Righini, living in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Commission's decisions classifying the applicant
at Grade A7-3 on her entry into service, whether as a
member of the temporary staff or as a probationary official,
such decisions having been notified to her on 27 May 2003
and 30 June 2003;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs, pursuant to Article
the Court of First

the Rules of Procedure of

87(2) of
Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges her classification in Grade A7, Step 3,
on her appointment as a probationary official on 21 May
2003.

In support of her claims, she alleges:

— infringement of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations;

— infringement of the Commission's decision of 1 September
1983, as amended on 7 February 1996, specifying the
criteria to be applied when classifying members of the
temporary staff and officials in their grade and step upon
recruitment;

— infringement of certain general principles of law, such as
the principle of equal treatment, the protection of legitimate
expectations and the duty to have due regard to the welfare
of officials, and also of
requiring the
appointing authority to make a decision only on the basis
of relevant grounds, not vitiated by an obvious error of
assessment.

the principles

The applicant argues that both her exceptional qualifications
and the profile of the post in question, which required that a
particularly qualified person be appointed, justified her classifi-
cation in Grade A6.

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 TQ3 Travel Solu-
tions, established in Mechelen (Belgium), represented by Rusen
Ergec and Kim Möric, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Commission's decision of 24 February 2004,
informing the applicant of the rejection of its tender for Lot
1 (Brussels) of Contract No ADMIN/D1/PR/2003/131;

— Annul

the Commission's decision awarding Lot 1 to
Carlson Wagonlit Travel, notified to the applicant by a
letter from the Commission of 16 March 2004;

— Hold that the unlawful action by the Commission consti-
tutes a fault capable of rendering it liable to the appliant;

— Send the applicant back to the Commission for the loss

suffered to be assessed;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following a restricted invitation to tender for ‘travel agency
services’ (1)
issued on 20 October 2003 and the tendering
procedure, the Commission took the decision not to award the
contract to the applicant and to award it to Carlson Wagonlit
Travel.

The applicant makes two identical pleas in law challenging
those decisions, alleging obvious error by the Commission in
assessing the tenders.

In its first plea, the applicant claims that the Commission made
an obvious error of assessment by holding that the tender of
Carlson Wagonlit Travel was not abnormally low; it also claims
that the Commission acted unlawfully by failing to comply
with the obligation under Article 146(4) of Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 (2), requiring
it to ask for appropriate clarifications as to the composition of
the tender.