Case T-173/05: Action brought on 27 April 2005 by Martine Heus against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-07-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, competition (EU), regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/39

Action brought on 27 April 2005 by Martine Heus against
the Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 28 April 2005 by Pia Landgren against
the European Training Foundation

(Case T-173/05)

(2005/C 182/72)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-180/05)

(2005/C 182/73)

(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 27 April 2005 by Martine Heus,
Anderlecht (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority on
7 January 2005 rejecting the complaint lodged by the appli-
cant on 18 October 2004 against the decision of 19 July
2004 adopted by the chairman of the selection board in
competition COM/PC/04 refusing to admit the applicant to
that competition;

2. annul, to the extent necessary, the decision adopted on 19
July 2004 by the chairman of the selection board in compe-
tition COM/PC/04;

3. order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was refused admission to competition COM/PC/
04 on the ground that she did not fulfil the requirement of five
years' seniority within the Commission or another institution,
as the periods of professional activity she had spent in the
Commission on a temporary basis were not taken into account
by the selection board in the competition.

In support of her application the applicant relies on pleas of
breach of Articles 27 and 29(1) of the Staff Regulations and a
manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decisions
and the notice of competition, or in any event the interpreta-
tion given to them by the appointing authority, resulted in the
rejection of the applicant for reasons relating solely to her
former administrative status (as member of the contract staff
rather than a member of staff covered by the Conditions of
Employment).

The applicant also relies on a plea of breach of the principle of
non-discrimination,
in so far as the criteria at issue allowed
other candidates to be admitted to the competition although
they were less competent or had less professional experience
within the Commission.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 April 2005 by Pia Landgren,
Turin (Italy), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the decision of 25 June 2004 of the former Director

of the Foundation dismissing the applicant;

2. annul, if necessary, the decision of 19 January 2005 of the
Director of Training rejecting the complaint made by the
applicant on 27 September against the first decision;

3. order the Foundation to pay, in compensation for the mate-
the
rial damage caused to her by the unlawfulness of
contested decisions, a sum equivalent
to the salary and
pension she would have received if she had been able to
continue her career at the Foundation until the age of 65,
reduced by the amount of the allowances for dismissal and
unemployment and the pension she has received or will
receive because of her dismissal;

4. order the Foundation to pay the applicant a sum at the
Court's discretion to make good the non-material damage
caused to her by the unlawfulness of the contested decision;

5. order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the applicant, the Foundation has not established
that the decision to dismiss the applicant is based on a valid
ground in law, particularly as that decision is in apparent
contradiction with the applicant's staff report for 2003.

The applicant also claims that the real reason for her dismissal
is manifestly unlawful and contrary to the interest of
the
service because it is based on a prior agreement that she would
leave the Foundation after 31 December 2003.