CELEX: C1999/299/38
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-169/99: Action brought on 14 July 1999 by Michael Rupp against the Commission of the European Communities

16.10.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 299/27
Action brought on 14 July 1999 by Michael Rupp against                   — the fact that, having regard to those irregularities, the
       the Commission of the European Communities                            defendant refused to permit inspection of the results of the
                                                                             tests already concluded prevented the applicant from
                          (Case T-169/99)                                    pursuing his legal interests, and consequently constitutes
                                                                             an unlawful obstacle placed in the way of a citizen of the
                                                                             Union.
                         (1999/C 299/38)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 97 A of 31.3.1998.
                   (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
European Communities on 14 July 1999 by Michael Rupp,
residing in Brussels, represented by Silke Wöhlert, Rechtsan-
wältin, of 11B In der Aue, Heidelberg (Germany).
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 10 August 1999 by Georgios Karavelis
                                                                                        against the European Parliament
I.   annul the defendant’s decision not to admit the applicant
     to the (competition) test held on 16 July 1999;
                                                                                                 (Case T-182/99)
II. order that the applicant’s representative be given the
     opportunity to inspect the competition file relating to the                                 (1999/C 299/39)
     applicant, in order to make sure that the test results are
     correct;
III. order the defendant to invite the applicant to take part in                            (Language of the case: Greek)
     the main test held in Brussels on 16 July 1999;
                                                                         An action against the European Parliament was brought before
IV. order the defendant to pay the costs.                                the Court of First Instance on 10 August 1999 by Georgios
                                                                         Caravelis, represented by Professor Haris Tagaras, of the
                                                                         Athens Bar.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
The applicant, who is currently employed in a temporary
position in Directorate-General IA of the European Com-
mission, took part in open competition No COM/A/10/98 (1),               — hold the application admissible;
which was organised by the Commission. On the strength of
his good results, he was admitted to that competition, in which          — annul the contested acts in so far as the applicant’s name
he was awarded the requisite minimum number of marks.                        is not included on the 1998 list of those to be promoted
However, by letter from the defendant dated 25 June 1999 he                  to Grade A 4 or, in the alternative, order the defendant
was informed that his complaint concerning the decision not                  to pay compensation for non-material damage of BEF
to admit him to the main test in the competition had been                    100 000;
rejected. Only after the applicant had insisted on being given
an answer was he sent a definitive refusal to admit him to the
                                                                         — order the Parliament to pay the costs.
test; this failed to take into account the imminence of the
subsequent test, since he did not receive an answer until 8 July
1999.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims, as a matter of law, that the competition
procedure was vitiated by manifest defects, which give rise to           The applicant, an official of the European Parliament, chal-
an imperative requirement that he be admitted to the main                lenges the legality of the 1998 procedure for promotion to
test:                                                                    Grade A 4. In his view that procedure was vitiated by the
                                                                         following defects:
— it was only during one of the breaks that a typographical
     error in the Swedish-language part of the test was disco-
     vered. The candidates were given the opportunity of                 1. The Promotions Committee downgraded the staff reports
     re-sitting that test following the conclusion of the entire             of those eligible for promotion, attaching special weight to
     test procedure. It was therefore possible for the candidates            the recommendations of the Directorates-General.
     concerned to obtain the answers to the corresponding
     questions from other candidates during the breaks, before           2. Those recommendations took into account only up to
     sitting the test in question. This seriously-prejudiced the             20 % of those eligible for promotion in each Directorate-
     applicant, and thus constitutes a breach of the principle of            General. The cases of the other officials eligible for
     equal treatment for all candidates;                                     promotion were not examined.