Case F-121/05: Action brought on  16 December 2005  –De Meerleer v Commission
Date: 2006-03-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition (EU), professional experience

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.

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