CELEX: C2005/115/58
Language: en
Date: 2005-05-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-113/05: Action brought on 28 February 2005 by Angel Angelidis against the European Paliament

14.5.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 115/32
            
         Action brought on 28 February 2005 by Angel Angelidis against the European Paliament
   (Case T-113/05)
   (2005/C 115/58)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 February 2005 by Angel Angelidis, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision taken by the Secretary-General of Parliament on 24 March 2004 to reject the candidature of the applicant for the A2 post of Director D (Budgetary Affairs) in the ‘Internal Policies’ DG (Notice of Vacancy No 10069) to which another candidate was appointed;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the appointment of the other candidate for the post;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 23 November 2004 rejecting the complaint lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the decision rejecting his candidature and against the decision to appoint another candidate to the post;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order compensation to be paid for the non-material damage suffered, assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 5 000 by way of damages, without prejudice to its increase or reduction in the course of proceedings;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his application the applicant relies on a plea of failure to state reasons for the contested decision in breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations. He also raises pleas of breach of the notice of vacancy, of Article 29(1) and Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, of the principles of equal treatment and of the right to career advancement and a manifest error of assessment, on the ground that his professional experience, his responsibilities and his management and negotiating skills were superior to those of the candidate selected. Finally the applicant alleges misuse of powers.