CELEX: C2004/094/142
Language: en
Date: 2004-04-17 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 9 February 2004 by Carlos Leite Mateus against Commission of the European Communities

17.4.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 94/53
            
         Action brought on 9 February 2004 by Carlos Leite Mateus against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-51/04)
   (2004/C 94/142)
   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 9 February 2004 by Carlos Leite Mateus, residing in Zaventem (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of 14 March 2003 drawing up the applicant's career development report for 2001-2002;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant disputes his career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002.
   In support of his claims he relies on pleas of:
   
               —
            
            
               breach of the obligation to state grounds;
            
         
               —
            
            
               a manifest error of assessment;
            
         
               —
            
            
               breach of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, in that, first, the decision of the appeal assessor to downgrade the assessment of the applicant's skills was erroneously based on tasks which were not his responsibility and were not required by his post, and, second, there were inconsistencies between the comments and the marks awarded.