CELEX: C2001/061/28
Language: en
Date: 2001-02-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-352/00: Action brought on 20 November 2000 by Andrew M. Rosemarine against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

C 61/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.2.2001
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 16 November 2000 by Giorgio Lebedef                    In support of his application, the applicant pleads:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         —    infringement of the framework agreement concluded
                                                                              between the Commission and the OSPs in 1974, on
                        (Case T-349/00)                                       account of the absence of any objective examination of
                                                                              the representativity of the OSPs and a manifest error in
                                                                              the comparative assessment of that representativity;
                         (2001/C 61/27)
                                                                         —    breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-
                                                                              discrimination;
                   (Language of the case: French)                        —    breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                              interests;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                —    infringement of the rights of the defence;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 November 2000 by Giorgio                      —    breach of the principle prohibiting arbitrary methods, of
Lebedef, residing at Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented                  the obligation to provide a statement of reasons and of
by Gilles Bouneou, of the Luxembourg Bar.                                     the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
                                                                              officials;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —    abuse of powers and improper exercise of authority.
—     annul the ‘Operational Rules on the consultation levels,
      the consultation body and related procedures’ agreed
      between the majority of the trade unions/staff associ-
      ations (‘the OSPs’) and the administration of the Com-
      mission on 19.1.2000;
                                                                         Action brought on 20 November 2000 by Andrew M.
—     alternatively, annul the composition of the consultation           Rosemarine against the Office for Harmonisation in the
      body as provided for by those rules in so far as it                                        Internal Market
      excludes the trade union ‘Action & Défense’ from such
      consultations;                                                                             (Case T-352/00)
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 17.2.2000 refusing                                       (2001/C 61/28)
      to grant the applicant leave to attend, on a mission basis,
      the meeting of the ‘Ad hoc working group on staff reports
      and proposals for the promotion of staff on secondment                               (Language of the case: English)
      and staff elected or designated to fulfil certain functions’
      or to engage on the same basis in any other activity in
      the context of staff representation.                               An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities on 20 November 2000 by
                                                                         Andrew M. Rosemarine, represented by James Davis, of the
                                                                         Aire Centre, London.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should order the OHIM to:
The applicant, a Commission official, seeks annulment of the
                                                                         —    compensate for:
operational rules in issue on the ground that they exclude
from the consultation body the trade union known as ‘Action
& Défense’, of which he is a one of the leaders. He also seeks                —     the sum of the value of the job
annulment of an individual decision taken against him,
refusing to grant him leave to engage in his trade-union                      —     the loss of enjoyment of having a job in Alicante
activities on a mission basis on the ground that such missions
must be restricted exclusively to the OSPs represented on the                 —     the inconvenience of these appeals to the OHIM and
consultation body.                                                                  the Court;
 ---pagebreak--- 24.2.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 61/15
—     and to pay for all costs.                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant, a grade C Commission official, is contesting the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Commission’s decision refusing to admit her to the tests in
                                                                          competition COM/TB/99 for the constitution of a reserve list
The applicant explains that the Office for Harmonisation in               of administrative assistants, senior administrative assistants
the Internal Market (OHIM) published an advertisement for a               and principal administrative assistants (grades B5/B4, B3/B2
job as a lawyer-linguist. Before going to the trouble of sending          and B1), on the ground that she did not possess the pro-
in a full application pack for the job, he wrote to check that            fessional experience required in category B.
his age would not be held against him. In answer to his letter,
the OHIM sent him the application forms, stressed the                     The applicant complains that the Commission unlawfully
importance of relevant ‘qualifications and experience’, and               refused to take account of the professional experience gained
raised no objection to his age. Nevertheless, in August 2000              by her in a category C job at a level corresponding to the
he was rejected on the grounds that he was a year older than              duties to be performed.
the OHIM wished.
                                                                          Although the competition notice may have provided that the
In these circumstances, the applicant claims compensation on              candidates were to have acquired the professional experience
the basis of the illegality of the OHIM’s decision on the grounds         relating to category B, that condition and the contested
of discrimination in the OHIM’s employment procedure                      decision taken on the basis of the notice are equally vitiated by
(ageism) and breach of vested rights and legitimate expec-                illegality.
tations.
Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Justina Martı́-                     Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Antonio
nez Alarcón against the Commission of the European                       Cherenti against the Commission of the European Com-
                            Communities                                                                munities
                          (Case T-357/00)                                                          (Case T-361/00)
                           (2001/C 61/29)                                                           (2001/C 61/30)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Justina                       European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Antonio
Martı́nez Alarcón, residing in Brussels, represented by Carlos           Cherenti, residing at Thuin (Belgium), represented by Carlos
Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.                                             Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decisions dated 28 January 2000 and 24 Febru-             —     annul the decision dated 28 January 2000 of the selection
      ary 2000 of the selection board in competition                            board in competition COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit
      COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit the applicant to that                    the applicant to that competition, and the implicit
      competition, and the implicit decision of the appointing                  decision of the appointing authority dated 7 September
      authority dated 28 August 2000 giving a negative                          2000 giving a negative response to the complaint submit-
      response to the complaint submitted by the applicant;                     ted by the applicant;
—     alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant          —     alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant
      the sum of BEF 3 160 000, subject to alteration during                    the sum of BEF 7 350 000, subject to alteration during
      the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation                     the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation
      for material and non-material damage;                                     for material and non-material damage;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               —     order the defendant to pay the costs.