CELEX: C2004/179/26
Language: en
Date: 2004-07-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-165/04: Action brought on 3 May 2004 by Hippocrate Vounakis against Commission of the European Communities

10.7.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 179/13
            
         Action brought on 3 May 2004 by Hippocrate Vounakis against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-165/04)
   (2004/C 179/26)
   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 3 May 2004 by Hippocrate Vounakis, residing at Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision establishing his career development review for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant contests, on formal and substantive grounds, his career development review for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002.
   In support of his claims, he asserts:
   
               —
            
            
               infringement of Article 2 of the General Provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant states in that regard that the review in question was established by a person lacking the power to do so;
            
         
               —
            
            
               the existence, in this case, of a manifest error of assessment, and inconsistency between the comments and the marks awarded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               infringement of the duty to state reasons. The applicant asserts on that point that the overall mark awarded him places him below the average, despite the fact that his previous reviews were good, without any explanation for the deterioration.