Case F-123/05: Action brought on  13 December 2005  — Jean-Marc Bracke v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-03-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, competition (EU), regulations for civil servants

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/53

The applicant maintains that the competition selection board
breached Articles 29(1)(a) and 30 of the Staff Regulations,
Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations and the competi-
tion notice, in so far as a manifest error of assessment vitiates
the evaluation of the applicant's professional experience and
the decision not to accept his candidature. Furthermore, the
decision contains only inadequate reasons.

The applicant further criticises the competition selection board
and the appointing authority for having breached Article 25 of
the Staff Regulations, Article 7 of Annex III to the Staff Regula-
tions and also the competition notice and the principle of equal
treatment for candidates. In particular, the use of unreliable
computer systems in correspondence with the applicant gave
rise to discrimination against the applicant by comparison with
other candidates.

As an ancillary point, in case the Tribunal should not grant his
application for annulment of the contested decisions, the appli-
cant contends that the award of compensation would constitute
the most appropriate form of reparation for the non-pecuniary
and pecuniary damage that those decisions caused to him.

Action brought on 21 December 2005 — Economidis v
Commission

(Case F-122/05)

(2006/C 60/98)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Ioannis Economidis (Woluwé-St-Etienne, Belgium)
Applicant:
(represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J-N Louis, E. Marchal,
lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission's decision appointing Mr S. Hogan
to the post of Head of Unit ‘Biotechnology and applied
genomics’;

— annul the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature for

that post;

Pleas in law and main arguments

the Commission, contests the
The applicant, an official of
appointing authority's rejection of his candidature for the post
as Head of Unit ‘Biotechnology and applied genomics’ (vacancy
notice COM/R/7012/04).

In support of the form of order sought, he relies on the unlaw-
fulness of the recruitment procedure, breach of Articles 29(1)
and 31 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the obligation to
state reasons and a manifest error of assessment.

He claims, specifically, that:

— by failing to fix the grade at which the post would be filled,
inform candidates as
the appointing authority did not
precisely as possible of
the conditions
required to occupy the vacant post in order to put them in
a position to determine whether it was appropriate to apply
for it;

the nature of

— the reasons provided by the Commission are irrelevant, in
so far as they do not permit the applicant to examine the
merits of the decision or the Community judicature to exer-
cise its power of review;

— the contested decisions are vitiated by a manifest error of
assessment in that the candidate chosen does not have all
the general and special qualifications required, unlike the
applicant, whose professional experience demonstrates his
high abilities, notably in management.

Action brought on 13 December 2005 — Jean-Marc
Bracke v Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-123/05)

(2006/C 60/99)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s):
(represented by: P. Bruwier, lawyer)

Jean-Marc Bracke (Watermael-Boitsfort, Belgium)

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

C 60/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2006

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

— annul the decision adopted on 7 September 2005 by the
appointing authority in response to the complaint lodged
by Mr Jean-Marc Bracke (No R/570/05) and the subsequent
measures adopted as a consequence of that decision;

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

— in so far as necessary, annul the Commission's decision of 7
October 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint (No R/
488/05);

— order the defendant to pay compensation of EUR 72 000
for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained by
the applicant
the irregularities or
repeated service-related faults committed by the Commis-
sion in the context of the 1998 and 1999 promotion exer-
cises;

in consequence of

Pleas in law and main arguments

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

The applicant, who was a successful candidate in competition
COM/PC/04, contests the legality of the appointing authority's
decision not to take him on as a probationary official on the
the seniority requirements
fulfil
ground that he does not
included among the eligibility conditions for the abovemen-
tioned competition.

The applicant contends that the contested decision infringes
Article 27 of the Staff Regulations in that, for no valid reason,
it denies some of the candidates access to the vacant post. He
also alleges breach of the principle of non-discrimination, of
the principle of sound administration, of the principle of inde-
pendence of the selection board and of the principle of the
protection of legitimate expectations. Finally, he contends that
the provision in the vacancy notice on which the abovemen-
tioned decision was based, namely paragraph III .1, is illegal,
since it is in breach of the principle of non-discrimination and
should therefore be declared inoperative, pursuant to Article
241 EC.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission's decisions rejecting the
request and the complaint which he had submitted in order to
obtain compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage caused to him by the Commission's conduct in the
context of the 1998 and 1999 promotion exercises. In order to
contest the measures taken by the Commission in respect of
him, the applicant had initiated four pre-contentious proce-
dures and four contentious procedures, which culminated in
either the withdrawal or the annulment of those measures.

The pecuniary damage follows from the fact that, in order to
ensure that his interests were fully defended in the context of
the pre-contentious procedures, the applicant was required to
consult a legal adviser. The non-pecuniary damage follows
from the situation of uncertainty in which the applicant found
himself for a number of years and also from his loss of confi-
dence in the institution.

Action brought on 19 December 2005 — Tsarnavas v
Commission

(Case F-125/05)

(2006/C 60/100)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vassilios Tsarnavas (Athens, Greece) (represented by:
N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the appointing authority's decision of 1 April 2005
rejecting the applicant's request under Article 90(1) of the
Staff Regulations (Request No D/007/05);

Action brought on 22 December 2005 — Borbély v
Commission

(Case F-126/05)

(2006/C 60/101)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Andrea Borbély (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
R. Stötzel, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities