CELEX: C2005/106/81
Language: en
Date: 2005-04-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-95/05: Action brought on 14 February 2005 by Jean Dehon against European Parliament

30.4.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 106/40
            
         Action brought on 14 February 2005 by Jean Dehon against European Parliament
   (Case T-95/05)
   (2005/C 106/81)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance on 14 February 2005 by Jean Dehon, residing at Hagen (Luxembourg), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin M., Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the European Parliament of 29 April 2004 appointing another person as deputy head of the French translation division;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant takes exception to the appointing authority's refusal to uphold his application for the post of deputy head of the French translation division. The candidate chosen was appointed following the publication of internal competition notice LA/113 (vacancy notice No 9192).
   In support of his claims, he alleges infringement of Article 233 of the EC treaty, infringement of Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principle of the right to career development and failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons.
   Specifically, he contends that:
   
               —
            
            
               the contested appointment was made without any examination of the applicant's application;
            
         
               —
            
            
               the order of priority for the various procedures for filling posts, as provided for in Article 29 of the Staff Regulations, was not observed;
            
         
               —
            
            
               the absence of a decision regarding the applicant's application under the procedure for promotion/transfer is particularly serious since the procedure for filling the post in question had already been the subject of an annulling judgment in Case T-261/99 Dehon v Parliament. Compliance with that judgment involved restoring the situation to the position as it stood before the circumstances criticised by the Court came into being.