CELEX: C2005/057/49
Language: en
Date: 2005-03-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-472/04: Action brought on 20 November 2004 by Vassilios Tsarnavas against the Commission of the European Communities

5.3.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 57/29
            
         Action brought on 20 November 2004 by Vassilios Tsarnavas against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-472/04)
   (2005/C 57/49)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 November 2004 by Vassilios Tsarnavas, residing in Volos (Greece), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Commission of 23 December 2003 in so far as it failed to include the applicant's name in the list of officials put forward for promotion in 1999, or on the list of officials adjudged to be the most deserving of promotion to grade A4 in the 1998 and 1999 promotion rounds, or on the list of officials promoted to grade A4 in those promotion rounds;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul all connected and/or subsequent decisions;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in so far as may be necessary, annul the decision of the Commission of 5 August 2004, rejecting the applicant's complaint;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of its action, the applicant alleges procedural irregularities, an infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations, an infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, infringements of the principle of equal treatment and sound administration and, lastly, a manifest error of assessment.