CELEX: C1999/314/29
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-202/99: Action brought on 10 September 1999 by Léon Rappe against the Commission of the European Communities

C 314/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  30.10.1999
Action brought on 10 September 1999 by Léon Rappe                         Action brought on 17 September 1999 by Martin Bange-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                          mann against the Council of the European Union
                        (Case T-202/99)                                                           (Case T-208/99)
                        (1999/C 314/29)
                                                                                                  (1999/C 314/30)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                           (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               An action against the Council of the European Union was
European Communities on 10 September 1999 by Léon                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Rappe, residing at Orp-Jauche (Belgium), represented by                  Communities on 17 September 1999 by Martin Bangemann,
Jean-Noël Louis, Greta Françoise Parmentier and Véronique                of Melle (France), represented by Wolfgang Knapp and Till
Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in               Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue               & Hamilton, 23 Rue de la Loi, Brussels.
de Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission’s decision not to promote the                     (a) annul the Council’s decision of 9 July 1999 on the referral
     applicant to grade A 6 in the course of the 1998 pro-                   of the applicant’s case to the Court of Justice of the
     motion procedure;                                                       European Communities pursuant to the third subpara-
                                                                             graph of Article 213(2) EC;
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensation
     for the material and non-material damage suffered by him,           (b) order the defendant to pay the costs.
     in such sum as it shall deem fair and equitable, without
     prejudice to any measures which the institution may be
     required to take pursuant to Article 233 of the EC Treaty;          Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         On 9 July 1999 the Council of the European Union (‘the
                                                                         defendant’) adopted a decision to refer the case of Mr
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Bangemann (‘the applicant’) to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities pursuant to the final sentence of the
The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Articles 43 and 45          third subparagraph of Article 213(2) of the Treaty establishing
of the Staff Regulations of officials. He maintains that, as at          the European Community and the corresponding provisions
the date of assessment of the comparative merits of the                  of the ECSC and EAEC Treaties (1). That decision was formally
candidates, his personal file did not contain any definitive             served on the applicant by letter from the defendant of even
report concerning the duties performed by him as an adminis-             date.
trator between 1995 and 1997, and that, consequently, neither
the Promotion Committee nor the appointing authority was                 The applicant maintains that:
in a position properly to compare the merits of the applicant
with those of the other officials eligible for promotion. He             — the contested decision should not have been adopted
also maintains that, in adopting the contested decision and                  without the applicant first having been heard;
expressly rejecting his complaint, the appointing authority
failed to provide him with the information necessary in order
                                                                         — the contested decision is based on an infringement of
for him to be able to understand the justification for that
                                                                             Article 213(2) EC, inasmuch as he had not taken up the
decision; the defendant thereby disregarded Articles 25 and 26
                                                                             appointment offered to him with the Telefónica Company;
of the Staff Regulations as well as the rights of the defence and
the principles of equal treatment and sound administration.
                                                                         — he had not committed any breach of his duty under
                                                                             Article 213 EC to behave with discretion;
The applicant further asserts that the defendant was under an
obligation to draw up a report on his merits prior to
                                                                         — as a result of the contested decision, and in particular the
31 December 1997, covering the period from 1995 to 1997;
                                                                             unparalleled publication thereof in that form, he has
however, the definitive report has still not been drawn up.
                                                                             suffered non-material damage, and his reputation has
He accordingly claims that, as a result of that breach of
                                                                             been destroyed in consequence of the defendant having
administrative duty, which constitutes a failure by the adminis-
                                                                             prejudged the matter;
tration to comply with its duty to have regard for the welfare
and interests of officials and to act fairly, he has suffered
material damage, having been robbed of his chances of                    — as a result of the contested decision, he has also suffered
promotion, and also non-material damage arising from the                     material damage.
uncertainty and worry concerning his professional future and
the recognition of his merits; consequently, the defendant               (1) OJ L 192 of 24 July 1999, p. 55.
should be ordered to pay him compensation.