CELEX: C2001/331/54
Language: en
Date: 2001-11-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-235/01: Action brought on 21 September 2001 by Georgios Karavelis against the European Parliament

24.11.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 331/33
Action brought on 21 September 2001 by Georgios                          Action brought on 28 September 2001 by the Centre
          Karavelis against the European Parliament                      Européen pour la statistique et le développement A.s.b.l.
                                                                         (CESD — Communautaire, Asbl) against the Commission
                                                                                           of the European Communities
                         (Case T-235/01)
                                                                                                   (Case T-238/01)
                         (2001/C 331/54)
                                                                                                   (2001/C 331/55)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
21 September 2001 by Georgios Karavelis, an official of the              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Parliament, resident in Brussels, represented by                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
K. Tagaras.                                                              European Communities on 28 September 2001 by the Centre
                                                                         Européen pour la statistique et le développement Asbl (CESD
                                                                         — Communautaire, Asbl) established in Luxembourg, rep-
                                                                         resented by Dominique Grisay and Barbara Koops, lawyers,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              with an address for service in Luxembourg.
—     allow the application in its entirety and in respect of all
      the forms of order sought,                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the notification concerning the filling of vacancy           —     appoint a legal expert,
      No 9186 and the implied rejection by the defendant of
      the applicant’s administrative complaint of 11 May 2001,
                                                                         —     state, on the basis of the legal expert’s report, which
                                                                               expenses incurred by the applicant should be considered
—     order the defendant to bear the entire legal costs of both               ineligible, and accordingly what amount, if any, should
      parties irrespective of the outcome of the case.                         be repaid to the Commission by the applicant,
                                                                         —     alternatively, authorise the applicant to determine, on the
                                                                               basis of the audit carried out by its auditor, which
                                                                               amounts could properly be considered as ineligible by
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                the Commission’s internal audit services and, after hearing
                                                                               the parties, to revise the debit note sent by the Com-
                                                                               mission’s services on 16 August 2001, determining which
                                                                               ineligible amounts should be repaid to the Commission
The applicant, an official of the European Parliament promoted
                                                                               by the applicant,
to Grade A 4 from 1 January 2000, challenges the decisions
by which the defendant rejected his candidature for vacancy
No 9186 (the post of director of the Information Office in               —     order the Commission to pay the costs, including the
Athens, at Grade A 3) on the ground that, at the time of                       costs of the expert’s report.
submission of his candidature, he had not completed the
required two years’ service at the Grade of A 4. The applicant
submits that, since an application by him contesting the
decision not to promote him to Grade A 4 during the 1998
promotion procedure was pending before the Court of First
Instance, which, by judgment of 8 May 2001, found in his                 Pleas in law and main arguments
favour and annulled the relevant decision by the defendant,
the latter was obliged to demonstrate reasonable care and
extend the period for submission of candidatures and thus
take account of his candidature.                                         The applicant is a non-profit-making organisation the object
                                                                         of which is to implement technical cooperation projects in the
                                                                         field of statistics for the benefit of third countries. To that end,
                                                                         the applicant receives subsidies on the basis of an agreement
                                                                         concluded with the Commission.