CELEX: C2005/193/54
Language: en
Date: 2005-08-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-200/05: Action brought on 12 May 2005 by Michael Cwik against the Commission of the European Communities

6.8.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 193/32
            
         Action brought on 12 May 2005 by Michael Cwik against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-200/05)
   (2005/C 193/54)
   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 12 May 2005 by Michael Cwik, residing in Tervuren (Belgium), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               1.
            
            
               annul the decision of the Director General of DG ECFIN of 25 June 2004 confirming, without amendment, the applicant's Career Development Report (CDR) for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               annul, in so far as it is necessary, the Commission's decision of 24 January 2005 rejecting the applicant's claim (R/970/04);
            
         
               3.
            
            
               order the defendant to pay symbolic damages of EUR 1;
            
         
               4.
            
            
               order the defendant to pay all the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas and main arguments relied on by the applicant with regard to the new evaluation system for officials are similar to those relied on in Case T-96/04. In addition, the applicant submits that that new system leads to an abuse of power to the extent that the number of merit points granted is influenced by expected promotions. Finally, the applicant alleges that the disputed report is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment.