Case F-118/05: Action brought on  12 December 2005  — Klopfer v Commission
Date: 2006-03-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition (EU), professional experience, regulations for civil servants

C 60/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2006

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Action brought on 12 December 2005 — Klopfer v
Commission

Action brought on 16 December 2005 –De Meerleer v
Commission

(Case F-118/05)

(2006/C 60/96)

(Case F-121/05)

(2006/C 60/97)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Matthias Klopfer (Berlin, Germany) (represented by:
E. Pätzel)

Applicant: Michel De Meerleer
Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelet, lawyer)

(Ophain-Bois-Seigneur-Isaac,

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision ADMIN.B.2/D (05) 18479/EGL-ade of the
Director of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)
of 29 August 2005;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

took part

The applicant
in competition EPSO/B/11/03 to
constitute a 'reserve pool of assistants in the field of production
of publications: proofreading' in Grades B 5/B 4.

The Selection Board for that competition decided to exclude
the applicant from the competition as he had completed the
necessary three-year period of professional experience only
through part-time work, which,
in the view of the Selection
Board, did not fulfil the requirements.

In support of his action, the applicant claims infringement of
the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 5 of the
Staff Regulations. Furthermore, the wording of the notice of
competition is, he argues, ambiguous in such a way that it also
amounts to infringement of the principle that the administra-
tive authorities are bound by the provision which they them-
selves have laid down.

— annul the decision of the selection board for Open Compe-
tition EPSO/A/19/04 not to accept the applicant's candida-
ture and, consequently, not to admit him to the competi-
tion or to mark his written test;

— annul

the selection board's decision of 30 May 2005
refusing to make a determination in respect of the appli-
cant's request for a reconsideration of 18 May 2005 and
also annulment of any act consecutive upon or relating to
that decision;

— in so far as necessary, annul the appointing authority's deci-
sion of 2 September 2005, notified to the applicant on 14
September 2005, rejecting the applicant's complaint, which
was registered on 13 June 2005 under reference R/493/05;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant participated in Open Competition EPSO/A/19/04
for the establishment of a reserve list for the recruitment of
administrators in grade A7/A6 in the specialist fields of civil
engineering, engineering, chemistry/chemical products/indus-
trial chemistry and air transport. Following his success in the
pre-selection tests, he sent EPSO his application together with
the requisite supporting documents. After examining the file,
the selection board excluded the applicant from the competi-
tion on the ground that his professional experience was inade-
quate.