CELEX: C1998/340/53
Language: en
Date: 1998-11-07 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 14 September 1998 by Dino Cantoreggi against the European Parliament (Case T-144/98)

C 340/28             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.11.98
As regards the person ultimately appointed to the post in          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
issue by the appointing authority, the applicant argues that
that person lacked professional experience in the field in         The applicant contests the refusal of the appointing
question, and that the appointment of that person resulted         authority to accept his application for the post referred to
from the application of political pressure at the highest          above. He maintains in that regard that, according to the
level.                                                             information brought to his notice, it would have been
                                                                   clear from an examination of the personal files of those
The applicant puts forward the following pleas in support          who applied for the post at issue in response to an initial
of his claim:                                                      notice of vacancy concerning that post that the applicant
                                                                   fulfilled the requirements of the post in question and that
Ð illegality of the decision fixing the level of the post to
                                                                   his appointment to that post would have been in the
    be filled at grade A 5/A 4, inasmuch as that decision
                                                                   interests of the service. Moreover, his application had the
    was adopted having regard not to the importance of
                                                                   unconditional support of the Director-General then
    the tasks performed by the unit but to the grade of the
                                                                   competent in the matter and of the Secretary-General at
    official appointed;
                                                                   the time. However, the applicant was appointed to the
Ð infringement of Article 27(3) of the Staff Regulations;          post in issue only on a temporary basis, with effect from
                                                                   1 February 1997. On 9 January 1998 the appointing
Ð absence, alternatively inadequacy, of consideration of           authority terminated that temporary appointment.
    the comparative qualifications and merits of the               Meanwhile, a notice of vacancy had been published
    candidates by the Advisory Committee on                        pursuant to Article 29(1)(c) of the Staff Regulations,
    Appointments, which did not examine their personal             which repeated the requirements as to qualifications and
    files;                                                         knowledge contained in the initial notice of vacancy.
Ð disregard of the criteria of professional experience and
                                                                   In support of his claims, the applicant pleads, first,
    competence referred to in the notice of vacancy in
                                                                   infringement of Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff Regulations,
    issue;
                                                                   breach of the principle of equal treatment and dereliction
Ð inadequacy of the statement of reasons for the                   on the part of the defendant of its duty to have regard for
    contested decision;                                            the welfare and interests of officials, in that it decided to
                                                                   resort to the transfer procedure provided for by
Ð misuse of powers in present case, together with a                Article 29(1)(c) of the Staff Regulations without first
    manifest error of assessment.                                  considering whether to hold a competition internal to the
                                                                   institution.
                                                                   He also pleads infringement of Article 7(1) and of the
                                                                   third paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and
Action     brought on 14 September 1998 by             Dino        breach of the principles of non-discrimination and of the
         Cantoreggi against the European Parliament                protection of legitimate expectations, together, in the
                      (Case T-144/98)                              present case, with misuse of powers, inasmuch as the
                        (98/C 340/53)                              appointing authority appointed a person to the post in
                                                                   question without being guided solely by the interests of
               (Language of the case: French)                      the service; the appointment in issue was made on the
                                                                   basis of a nationality quota and with a view to reserving
An action against the European Parliament was brought              the post for a person who, it appears, is of the same
before the Court of First Instance of the European                 nationality as the President of the European Parliament,
Communities on 14 September 1998 by Dino Cantoreggi,               the latter having acted as the appointing authority in that
residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the         context.
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort Rheinsheim.           Lastly, the applicant considers that he fulfilled all the
                                                                   conditions for appointment to the post in issue, and that
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        the contested decision was adopted on the basis of
Ð annul the appointing authority's decision of                     incorrect considerations, alternatively without taking into
    12 February 1998 by which it appointed another                 account the interests of the service alone. Consequently, it
    person to the post of head of division (in grade A 3,          is vitiated by reasoning which is based on incorrect
    step 1) in the Directorate-General for Administration,         criteria and infringes Article 7, the second paragraph of
    based in Brussels, pursuant to Notice of Vacancy               Article 25 and Articles 29(1) and 45 of the Staff
    No 8045 (post No VI/A/1297) and Notice of Transfer             Regulations; it also breaches certain general legal
    No PE/A/208;                                                   principles, such as the principles of the protection of
                                                                   legitimate expectations and of non-discrimination. The
Ð annul the appointing authority's decision rejecting the          applicant states in that regard that, for the purposes of his
    applicant's application for that post, which was               possible appointment to the post, he possessed, in addition
    contained in Note No 6006 drawn up by HeÂleÁne                 to his specific qualifications, the advantage of being
    Puech, Head of the Recruitment and Personnel                   familiar with the history of the buildings concerned and
    Management Department and sent to the applicant on             with the institution itself, and of being extremely highly
    25 February 1998;                                              qualified in technical managment.
Ð order the defendant to pay all the costs in any event.