Case T-199/05: Action brought on 18 May 2005 by Laura Gnemmi against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-08-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, report, staff assessment

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/31

Action brought on 9 May 2005 by Jean-FranÅois Vivier
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-T-196/05)

(2005/C 193/51)

European Communities on 9 May 2005 by Asa Sundholm,
residing in Brussels
represented by SØbastien
Orlandi, Xavier Martin Membiela, Albert Coolen and Etienne
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

(Belgium),

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: French)

1. annul the decision of the Commission establishing the appli-

cant’s Career Development Report for 2003;

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 May 2005 by Jean-FranÅois
Vivier, residing in Le Petten (Netherlands), represented by
SØbastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen and Etienne Marchal, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the Commission’s decision fixing the applicant’s clas-

sification in grade A*6;

2. order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was recruited by the Commission as a temporary
servant, in a post for which the level of responsibility had been
fixed in the vacancy notice by reference to grades A7 to A4,
which under the new system are equivalent to grades A*8 to
A*12. Upon recruitment, however, his classification was fixed
in grade A*6.

The applicant claims that that decision should be annulled; he
maintains that it fails to take account of Article 9 of the Rules
applicable to other servants, since he was recruited at a grade
below the level of responsibility envisaged for his post. The
applicant further contends that Article 12 of Annex XIII to the
Staff Regulations, on which the Commission relies in order to
justify its decision on classification, does not apply in his case,
as he entered the service after 30 April 2004.

Action brought on 9 May 2005 by Asa Sundholm against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-197/05)

(2005/C 193/52)

(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

2. order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her claim, the applicant points out, firstly, the
existence of manifest inconsistencies between the points and
the reporting officer, which constitute a
the comments of
breach of the obligation to give reasons.

The applicant further submits that there is a manifest error of
assessment to the extent that she is criticised for having asked
her hierarchical superiors for details of the way in which she
should complete her work, without their having shown that
those instructions had been previously laid down in such a way
that they did not require clarification.

Finally, the applicant alleges infringement of her defence rights,
submitting that the appeal assessor based his decision on new
factors without affording her the opportunity of stating her
point of view.

Action brought on 18 May 2005 by Laura Gnemmi against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-199/05)

(2005/C 193/53)

(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 18 May 2005 by Laura Gnemmi,
residing in Arona (Italy), represented by Gilles BounØou and
FrØdØric Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

C 193/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.8.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. annul the reporting for the year 2003 so far as it concerns

the applicant;

2. alternatively, annul her Career Development Report for the

period 1.1.2003 (cid:1) 31.12.2003;

3. order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on the same pleas as those on which she
already relies in Case T-97/04 (1) relating to her Career Devel-
opment Report for the period 2001(cid:2)2002.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2004, p. 82.

Action brought on 12 May 2005 by Michael Cwik against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-200/05)

(2005/C 193/54)

(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 12 May 2005 by Michael Cwik,
residing in Tervuren (Belgium), represented by Nicolas Lhoºst,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the decision of the Director General of DG ECFIN of
25 June 2004 confirming, without amendment, the appli-
cant’s Career Development Report
for the period
(CDR)
from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003;

2. annul, in so far as it is necessary, the Commission’s decision
of 24 January 2005 rejecting the applicant’s claim (R/970/
04);

3. order the defendant to pay symbolic damages of EUR 1;

4. order the defendant to pay all the costs.

The pleas and main arguments relied on by the applicant with
regard to the new evaluation system for officials are similar to
those relied on in Case T-96/04.
In addition, the applicant
submits that that new system leads to an abuse of power to the
extent that the number of merit points granted is influenced by
expected promotions. Finally,
the
the applicant alleges that
disputed report is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment.

Action brought on 18 May 2005 by JosØ Mar(cid:1)a Perez
Santander against Council of the European Union

(Case T-201/05)

(2005/C 193/55)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 18 May 2005 by JosØ Mar(cid:3)a Perez Santander,
residing in Ixelles (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden
and L. Levi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(cid:1) annual the classification in grade granted to the applicant in
his recruitment decision, in so far as that classification is
based on Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regu-
lations;

(cid:1) in

the

applicant’s

reconstitute

consequence,

career
(including recognition of his experience in the grade thus
amended, his rights to promotion and his pension entitle-
ment), on the basis of the grade in which he should have
competition notice
been appointed as
stated in the
following which he was placed on the reserve list
for
recruitment, either in the grade appearing in that competi-
tion notice, or, corresponding to its equivalent according to
the classification in the new Staff Regulations (and the
appropriate step in accordance with the rules applicable
before 1 May 2004), on the basis of the decision appointing
him;