CELEX: C1998/327/48
Language: en
Date: 1998-10-24 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 2 June 1998 by Dimitrios Gouloussis against the Commission (Case T-86/98)

C 327/26             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.10.98
Action brought on 2 June 1998 by Dimitrios Gouloussis               6. order the Commission to provide the applicant with
                  against the Commission                                copies of the documents showing the factors taken
                                                                        into account by the appointing authority regarding the
                       (Case T-86/98)
                                                                        suitability of the person selected for the post to be
                        (98/C 327/48)                                   filled, namely Antonio Caeiro;
               (Language of the case: Greek)                        7. order the Commission to pay all the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 2 June 1998 by
Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal Adviser of the Commission,
resident at 131 Rue Broqueville, 1200 Brussels,                     According to the applicant, the decision of the appointing
represented by Eleni Metaxaki and Panagiotis                        authority to fill the post of principal legal adviser is non-
Giatagantzidis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for              existent. The decision was not taken by the
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Catherine                  Commissioners themselves, who constitute the appointing
Thill-Kamitaki, 4 Rue de l'Avenir, L-1147 Luxembourg.               authority in this instance, but by an unknown organ since,
                                                                    three days before the time-limit for submitting
                                                                    candidatures expired, the name of the person who had
                                                                    been selected for the advertised post was announced at a
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    meeting of the Transparency Group' at which 12
                                                                    Commission legal advisers were present.
1. annul the decision of the Commission of the European
    Communities of 30 July 1997 promoting Antonio
    Caeiro to the post of principal legal adviser in Grade          The applicant submits in the alternative that the decision
    A 2;                                                            being challenged is invalid because there was a misuse of
                                                                    powers in its adoption. The appointing authority did not
                                                                    use the power conferred on it to promote officials lawfully
                                                                    but to satisfy an objective inconsistent with the Staff
2. annul the decision, implicitly contained in the above
                                                                    Regulations, namely in order to grant a request by the
    unlawful     measure,      rejecting   the     applicant's
                                                                    Portuguese Government that a Portuguese legal adviser be
    candidature for the same post;
                                                                    promoted to the post at issue. The decision thus infringes
                                                                    Article 173 of the Treaty in conjunction with the third
                                                                    paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and
3. annul the implied decision of the Commission rejecting           Article 45 thereof.
    the complaint preceding the application;
                                                                    Furthermore, the decision is invalid because it was never
4. in order to establish the facts on which the application
                                                                    notified to the applicant in the required form.
    Ð and, in particular, the ground based on the third
    paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations Ð are
    founded, examine as witnesses the legal advisers
    present at the meeting of 19 June 1997 referred to in           The applicant contends in addition that the decisions
    paragraph II.1 of the application and the Director-             being challenged are invalid because of a complete failure
    General of the Commission's Legal Service, Jean-Louis           to state the grounds for them.
    Dewost, in particular with regard to the view which
    he expressed concerning the applicant and the person
    selected for the post at issue at all the stages of the         They are also invalid because of a manifest error as to the
    procedure for filling the post;                                 facts. The appointing authority was entirely mistaken with
                                                                    regard to the qualifications of the person selected and
                                                                    those of the applicant.
5. order the Commission to provide the applicant with
    copies of all the documents relating to the procedure
    for the adoption of the measures being challenged and,
    in particular, of the minutes of the meetings of the            The applicant submits, furthermore, that the entire
                                                                    procedure governing the promotion and the consideration
    competent organs (including those of the Advisory
                                                                    of the complaint is invalid because the body which
    Committee on Appointments to Grades A 1 and A 2,
    of the European Commission and of the preceding                 adopted the administrative measures was called on to
                                                                    decide the complaint against them.
    meeting of the Chefs de Cabinet of the
    Commissioners) but also other documents whose
    existence the applicant is unaware of because of the
    lack of transparency in the procedure for the adoption          Finally, the measures being challenged should be annulled
    of the measures being challenged;                               because they offend against the principle of transparency,
 ---pagebreak--- 24.10.98             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 327/27
which the Commission must observe when it adopts                     economics and part of the professional experience when
administrative measures.                                             classifying him.
                                                                     Although the directive on higher-education diplomas (1)
                                                                     does not bind the Community institutions directly, it
                                                                     would nevertheless be paradoxical if those institutions
                                                                     placed a different meaning on higher-education diploma'
Action brought on 8 June 1998 by Jürgen Wettig against
                                                                     and thereby disregarded the objectives and provisions of
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                     the directive.
                       (Case T-91/98)
                        (98/C 327/49)                                (1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC, (OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16).
               (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 8 June 1998 by               Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Anthony Goldstein
Jürgen Wettig, of Brussels, Belgium, represented by Peter               against the Commission of the European Communities
Wiesner, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, Germany, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dr                                      (Case T-100/98)
Johannes Henricus Van Vliet, 49 Rue Glesener.
                                                                                              (98/C 327/50)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                     (Language of the case: English)
Ð annul the decision of the defendant of 5 November
    1997 definitively classifying him in Step 1 of Grade
    A 5 from 1 October 1996;                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 1998
Ð order the defendant to classify him in Step 2 of his               by Anthony Goldstein, represented by Raymond St John
    current grade retroactively from 1 October 1996;                 Murphy, Merriman White, 3, King's Bench Walk, Inner
                                                                     Temple, London EC4Y 7DJ, United Kingdom.
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     Ð declare the Commission in breach of Council Directive
The applicant, a graduate of the Fachhochschule für                       84/450/EEC (1) to the extent that the Citizens First
Finanzen (higher education establishment specialising in                  Factsheet on the Recognition of Diplomas and
finance) of the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, has been                  Qualifications of General and Specialist Doctors in the
working as a member of the Commission's temporary staff                   United Kingdom misrepresents the rules applicable to
(in Directorate E of Directorate General XI) since                        specialist medical practitioners in the United Kingdom
1 October 1996. In accordance with clause 3 of his                        in order to promote the supply of specialist medical
contract of employment, he was classified in Step 1 of                    services by a category of medical practitioners who are
Grade A 5.                                                                not qualified by law to practise the regulated medical
                                                                          profession as licensed specialist medical practitioners
                                                                          and who have not completed the prescribed specialist
The applicant contends that when he took up his duties he                 medical training at Community level and national
already had more than 16 years' professional experience                   level and thereby do not offer the minimum safeguards
which was to be taken into account. Nevertheless, in                      required by Community law for practising a medical
breach of his right to be classified in the appropriate (or               specialty regulated by Community law as a specialist
definitive') step, the initial classification was retained,              medical practitioner;
although that is inconsistent with the Commission's
current administrative practice.
                                                                     Ð declare the Commission in breach of Council Directive
By recruiting the applicant in Grade A 5, the appointing                  84/450/EEC to the extent that the Citizens First
authority had implicitly recognised his diploma in                        Factsheet on the Recognition of Diplomas and