Case T-225/05: Action brought on 17 June 2005 by Guido Strack against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-08-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), appointment of staff, recruitment

C 205/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.8.2005

Action brought on 17 June 2005 by Guido Strack against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-225/05)

(2005/C 205/50)

(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 17 June 2005 by Guido Strack,
residing in Cologne (Germany), represented by J. Mosar, lawyer,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— take cognisance of the application lodged by the applicant

under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations;

— declare the application to be admissible and well-founded;

— set aside the defendant's decision of 22 March 2005

rejecting the appeal;

— set aside the defendant's decision of 19 November 2003

rejecting the application for the post;

— set aside competition procedure COM/A/057/04;

— order the defendant to pay damages to the applicant in the
the non-material
amount of EUR 5 000 in respect of
damage suffered by him on account of
the unlawfully
implemented selection procedure and the decision to reject
him, which was delayed and notified to him only after
repeated requests;

— order the Commission to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant took part in selection procedure COM/A/057/04.
By letter of 19 November 2004 the defendant informed the
applicant that his application had not been considered. The
appeal which the applicant made against this decision was
rejected by the European Commission in its decision of 18
March 2005. The present application seeks
to have the
appointing authority's decision of 19 November 2004 in the
form of its appeal decision of 18 March 2005 set aside and
also to have selection procedure COM/A/057/04 set aside.

it

the middle management level (C(2004) 15997, VM 73-2004)
include any member of
as the pre-selection body did not
another Directorate-General. Furthermore,
is claimed that
there is an infringement of Article 11 and Article 22a(3) of the
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities by
reason of the participation of two members of the pre-selection
body in the selection of candidates. Thirdly,
the applicant
submits that Articles 2, 4, 5, 7 and 29 of the Staff Regulations
of Officials of the European Communities have been infringed
as the appointing authority did not choose the most suitable
candidate.
the decision of 19
November 2004 rejecting his candidature infringes Article 25
of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Commu-
nities as the justification for it is not given. Lastly, the applicant
submits that there has been a breach of the principle of good
administration under Article 41 of the Charter of fundamental
rights of the European Union and of the duty to have regard
for the welfare of officials as he was not properly informed that
the post had been filled by someone else.

In addition, he claims that

Action brought on 14 June 2005 by Dimitra Lantzoni
against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

(Case T-226/05)

(2005/C 205/51)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 June 2005 by Dimitra Lantzoni,
residing in Luxembourg,
represented by Michèle Bouché,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the Court of Justice to pay EUR 50 000 as compen-
sation for the non-material loss suffered by the applicant as
a result of serious irregularities that have led to the blocking
of her career;

The applicant is relying on five grounds to support his applica-
tion. Firstly he asserts that the selection procedure infringes the
European Commission's Decision of 28 April 2004 regarding

— order the defendant to pay the costs.