Case T-373/04: Action brought on 12 September 2004 by Eric Mathias Fries Guggenheim against European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP)
Date: 2004-11-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Cedefop, European official, action by staff, action for annulment (EU), appointment of staff, professional qualifications, reassignment, recruitment, servant (EU)

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/25

Action brought on 12 September 2004 by Eric Mathias
Fries Guggenheim against European Centre for the Devel-
opment of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP)

the service, to which all reassignment measures are subject,
pursuant to Article 7 of the Staff Regulations.

(Case T-373/04)

(2004/C 284/49)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Centre for the Development of
Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) was brought before the Court
the European Communities on 12
of First
September 2004 by Eric Mathias fries Guggenheim, residing in
Thessaloniki
represented by Marc-Albert Lucas,
lawyer.

Instance of

(Greece),

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare unlawful the decision of 17 December 2003 of the
Director of the Centre on the improvement of Coordination
and the Efficiency in Cedefop (A4), in so far as it makes no
provision for a call for candidatures for posts as ‘Head of
Area’ or for a selection procedure for candidates for those
posts;

— annul the decisions of 28 January 2004 of the Director of
Cedefop to appoint certain persons as ‘Head of Area’ or
‘Acting Head of Area’;

— in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 1 June of the
Appeal Committee of Cedefop (A17) rejecting his adminis-
trative complaint of 6 May 2004 against
the earlier
contested decisions;

— order Cedefop to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a member of the temporary staff of Cedefop,
objects to the decisions of the Director of Cedefop of 28
January 2004 appointing certain persons as ‘Head of Area’ or
‘Acting Head of Area’.

The applicant relies on a breach of Article 7(1) and (2) of the
Staff Regulations and of the first paragraph of Article 10 of the
Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European
Communities, in that the servants of the Centre appointed as
‘Head of Area’ were assigned to new posts at a high level
requiring specific qualifications without a comparative exami-
nation of their qualifications and those of the other officials or
servants of the Centre.

In support of this plea, the applicant claims that a call for
candidatures and the selection of candidates for certain posts
may be required not only under Articles 4, 29 and 45 of the
Staff Regulations, when vacant posts are to be filled by transfer,
promotion or competition, but also by virtue of the interest of

Action brought on 20 September 2004 by the Federal
Republic of Germany against the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(Case T-374/04)

(2004/C 284/50)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 September 2004 by the Federal
Republic of Germany, represented by Claus-Dieter Quassowski,
Annette Tiemann, assisted by Dieter Sellner and Ulrich Karpen-
stein.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— annul Article 1 of Commission Decision K(2004)2515/2

fin. of 7 July 2004;

— annul Article 2 of that decision to the extent to which in
paragraphs (a) to (c) thereof it directs the Federal Republic
of Germany to carry out and notify certain changes in the
national allocation plan;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas and main arguments:

The contested decision concerns the national plan for the allo-
cation of greenhouse gas emissions notified by Germany
pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament
and the Council. In that decision the Commission raises objec-
tions to the provision for subsequent corrections made in the
national allocation plan for Germany in respect of allocations
for greenhouse gas emission certificates (‘ex-post adjustments
downwards’). In the Commission's view, the plan is on that
account
to Directive
2003/87/EC. (1)

irreconcilable with Annex

III

In substantiation of its action the applicant claims that the
contested decision is in breach of Article 9(3) of Directive
2003/87 in conjunction with Annex III thereto. Annex III does
not prohibit the Member States from counteracting an ‘over-
allocation’ by means of ‘ex-post adjustments’. On the contrary,
Directive 2003/87 requires the Member States to withdraw an
allocation decision based on erroneous data.