CELEX: C2001/186/26
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-97/01: Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Christos Gogos against the Commission of the European Communities

30.6.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 186/17
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                        (2) the decision of the selection board for that compe-
                                                                                    tition, as recorded and notified to the applicant by
The applicants oppose the appointment, with effect from                             the defendant’s letter of 17 October 2000 under
1 July 2001, of the new Secretary General of the Court of                           reference number 2556, to give the applicant a fail
Auditors.                                                                           mark in the abovementioned fresh oral test and not
                                                                                    to include him on the list of successful candidates;
In support of their claim, they rely on the following pleas:
                                                                              (3) the defendant’s reply of 20 February 2001 rejecting
—     Legal errors in the vacancy notice for the post in that,                      the administrative complaints under reference num-
      whilst the vacancy notice indicated that the successful                       bers R/502/00 and R/627/00 submitted by the
      candidate would be paid on the basis of salary scale A1,                      applicant against the first two contested measures
      the Court subsequently envisaged proposing that the post                      referred to above;
      at issue should be an ‘unclassified’ post. Moreover, the
      condition regarding relevant experience and the condition
                                                                              (4) all other related enforceable measures of the
      concerning ability to assume responsibility for manage-
                                                                                    defendant;
      ment of an organisation with numerous staff do not meet
      the requirements of precision and accuracy.
                                                                         —    order payment of compensation amounting to
—     Manifest error of assessment of criteria in that, in                    EUR 50 000 for the material and non-material harm
      particular, the Court used grade A6/A7 as the basis for                 caused to the applicant by the abovementioned measures;
      calculating the requisite 15 years’ experience.
—     Infringement of procedure in the selection of candidates           —    order the defendant to pay the costs.
      in that none of them was called to an interview even
      though such an interview was provided for in the vacancy
      notice.
                                                                         Grounds for annulment and main arguments
—     Manifest error of assessment in the choice of the success-
      ful candidate.
                                                                         The applicant’s allegations against the defendant are as follows:
                                                                         Claim for annulment
Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Christos Gogos against                   —    Infringement of Article 233 EC, independently and in
       the Commission of the European Communities                             conjunction with the infringement of the principle of
                                                                              equal treatment and of the rules governing the operation
                         (Case T-97/01)                                       of selection boards:
                        (2001/C 186/26)                                       (a)   the method chosen by the defendant for complying
                                                                                    with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                                    23 February 2000 was inconsistent with Article 233
                                                                                    EC (and with the abovementioned principle and
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                    rules);
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     (b) it would have been lawful to comply with the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                          judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 Febru-
European Communities on 4 May 2001 by Christos Gogos,                               ary 2000 by including the applicant on the list of
assistant administrator at the Commission, represented by                           successful candidates without fresh tests:
Professor Kharis Tagaras, Lawyer, Sagia Chambers, Likavit-
tou 5, Athens 106 72.
                                                                                    (i)   the argument arising from the judgment of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                               Court of First Instance of 23 February 2000;
—     annul:                                                                        (ii) rebuttal of the defendant’s submissions that
      (1) the decision of the appointing authority of the                                 entry on the list of successful candidates with-
            defendant, as recorded and notified to the applicant                          out a fresh oral test is contrary to Community
            by letter of 30 June 2000 under reference num-                                law;
            ber 1847, to invite him to a fresh oral test in internal
            competition COM/A/17/96 following the annulling                         (iii) the applicant’s general performance in the
            judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 Febru-                          tests in competition COM/A/17/96 and the
            ary 2000 (Case T-95/98);                                                      principle of proportionality;
 ---pagebreak--- C 186/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       30.6.2001
—     Infringement of the principle of equal treatment                    —     Order the defendant to pay the balance of pay corre-
                                                                                sponding to the difference between the remuneration of
      (a)   infringement because the composition of the selec-                  a person in Grade A, Step 3, and that of a person in the
            tion board varied and it was unable to carry out a                  grade above, together with interest thereon at the rate of
            valid comparison of the candidates;                                 8 % per annum as from 1 March 2000;
      (b) infringement because of the time which had passed
            since the original test period of December 1997;
                                                                          —     Order the defendant to pay damages, calculated pro-
      (c)   infringement because the applicant (and he alone)                   visionally on an ex aequo et bono basis, as EUR 1;
            was examined by all the regular and substitute
            members of the selection board;
                                                                          —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
      (d) infringement regarding the ratio of members of
            the selection board appointed by the appointing
            authority to members appointed by the personnel
            committee;
—     Infringement of the rules governing the operation of
      selection boards                                                    Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
      (a)   infringement because the composition of the selec-
            tion board varied;
      (b) infringement because the regular and substitute
            members participated on the selection board simul-            The applicant contests the decision of the appointing authority
            taneously;                                                    to classify him in Grade A 5, step 3. He contends that the
                                                                          appointing authority did not comply with Article 31(2) and
      (c)   infringement because the requirement for impar-               Article 32 of the Staff Regulations. According to the applicant,
            tiality was not observed.                                     the appointing authority took no account of his experience or
                                                                          his exceptional qualifications, nor of the specific requirements
                                                                          of the service, when deciding on his grade and the step.
Claim for compensation
The sum sought by the applicant in compensation amounts to
EUR 50 000 .
                                                                          The applicant also alleges infringement of the principle of non-
                                                                          discrimination by the appointing authority. He was classified
                                                                          in Grade A 5, Step 3, despite his experience or his exceptional
                                                                          qualifications, yet other persons, without exceptional qualifi-
                                                                          cations, were classified in the same grade and step. Likewise,
                                                                          there was discrimination between the applicant and the
                                                                          other persons to whom the appointing authority applied
                                                                          Article 32(2) of the Staff Regulations even though the profile
Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Filippos Pierros v                        of such persons was less exceptional. According to the
          Commission of the European Communities                          applicant, the principle of non-discrimination is not upheld by
                                                                          Articles 31 and 32 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant
                                                                          alleges discrimination between persons who have acquired
                          (Case T-98/01)                                  experience within the institutions and thous who have acquired
                                                                          experience outside the Communities as far as deciding on a
                         (2001/C 186/27)                                  person’s grade and step is concerned.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          The applicant also alleges infringement of the duty to have
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 regard for the interests of its staff, infringement of the rules on
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 4 May              the free movement of persons and, finally, a breach of the
2001 by Filippos Pierros, residing in Brussels, represented by            obligation to state reasons.
the lawyers Georges Vandersanden and Laue Levi.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
—     Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 23 June
      2000 classifying the applicant in Grade 5, Step 3, and, so
      far as may be necessary, annul the implied decision
      rejecting the applicant’s complaint;