CELEX: C2004/047/70
Language: en
Date: 2004-02-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-430/03: Action brought on 21 December 2003 by Iosif Dascalu against the Commission of the European Communities

21.2.2004              EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 47/37
—     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated             Action brought on 21 December 2003 by Iosif Dascalu
      4 September 2003, notified to the applicant on 11 Sep-             against the Commission of the European Communities
      tember 2003, rejecting his complaint R/173/03;
—     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated                                      (Case T-430/03)
      24 November 2003, notified to the applicant on
      10 December 2003, rejecting his complaint R/438/03;
                                                                                                 (2004/C 47/70)
—     Order the defendant to pay compensation set provision-
      ally at a sum of EUR 125 000 in case, against all
      possibility, it should not be able to reconstruct the
                                                                                         (Language of the case: French)
      applicant’s career in grade;
—     Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-
      ings.
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities on 21 December 2003 by Iosif
                                                                       Dascalu, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                       bourg.
Following the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases
C-389/98 P and C-459/98 P, the Commission reconsidered                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
under Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations the classification
of officials who used remedies within the meaning of Article 91
of the Staff Regulations. Following that exercise, the Com-            —    Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
mission adopted the contested decision in respect of the appt.              23 December 2002, in so far as it did not award the
                                                                            applicant additional seniority and therefore reclassified
                                                                            him in Grade A6, Step 1, instead of Grade A6, Step 3;
In support of his action, the applicant claims, as regards
additional seniority, that there has been a breach of the              —    Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
Commission decisions of 6 June 1973 and 1 September 1983                    14 April 2003, in so far as it:
on the criteria applicable to appointment in grade and to
classification in step on recruitment, a breach of Article 5(3)
of the Staff Regulations, a breach of the principle of equal                —     did not fix the applicant’s classification in Grade A6,
treatment and, last, a breach of Article 25(2) of the Staff                       Step 3 upon recruitment;
Regulations and of the obligation to state reasons.
                                                                            —     did not reconstruct the applicant’s career in grade
                                                                                  by bringing forward the date of his promotions
The applicant further claims that the contested decision                          to A5 and A4;
breaches the principle that an official should have reasonable
career prospects and Article 5(3) and Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations in that the decision does not reconstruct his career            —     limited the date on which the reclassification
in grade.                                                                         decision took effect as regards its pecuniary effects
                                                                                  to 5 October 1995.
Last, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of             —    Order the defendant to pay compensation set provision-
Article 62 of the Staff Regulations in that the Commission                  ally at a sum of EUR 125 000 in case, against all
limited the pecuniary effects of the contested decision to                  possibility, it should not be able to reconstruct the
5 October 1995.                                                             applicant’s career in grade;
                                                                       —    Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-
                                                                            ings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/38                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       21.2.2004
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     Annul the decision of the selection board in competition
The applicant, who was classified in Grade A7, Step 3, upon                     COM/TB/99 to award the applicant an insufficient mark
entering the service of the Commission in September 1986,                       in the oral test to allow him to be entered on the reserve
challenges the decision of the appointing authority, adopted                    list;
following a reconsideration of that classification following the
judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-389/98 P Gevaert v             —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Commission, to reclassify him in Step 1 of Grade A6, instead
of Step 3 of that grade, and revising and setting at new dates
his subsequent classification in Grade A5, Step 2, and A4,
Step 2, and limiting the pecuniary effects of that reclassification
to 5 October 1995.                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance on
In support of his claims, action, the applicant claims that the
                                                                          13 March 2002 in Case T-364/00 Van Weyenbergh, the
Commission has breached:
                                                                          applicant in the present case, as in Case T-161/01, objects to
                                                                          the decision of the selection board in competition COM/TB/
—     the decisions of 6 June 1973 and 1 September 1983 in                99 constituting a reserve list of administrative assistants,
      so far as it omitted to grant the applicant the slightest           senior administrative assistants and principal administrative
      seniority in step, and also Article 5(3) of the Staff               assistants, in Grades B5/B4, B3/B2 and B1 respectively, not to
      Regulations in so far as the Commission applied to the              enter him on the reserve list in that competition on the ground
      applicant a different outcome from that of officials in the         that he was awarded an insufficient mark in the oral test.
      same category;
—     Articles 5(3) and 45 of the Staff Regulations by refusing           In support of his claims, he alleges that there has been a
      to reconstruct his career in grade following his reclassifi-        breach of the principles of non-discrimination and proper
      cation in Grade A6, and breach of the duty to have regard           administration and also a manifest error of assessment.
      to the welfare of officials;
—     Article 62 of the Staff Regulations by limiting in time the         The applicant criticises the method used by the selection board
      pecuniary effects of his reclassification.                          to assess his knowledge of languages and claims, in particular,
                                                                          that he was unable to ascertain whether the questions put
                                                                          during the oral test correspond to the level of the competition
                                                                          B5/B4, B3/B2 or B1.
Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Liam O’Bra-
daigh against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                ties                                      Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Jean Dehon
                                                                                         against the European Parliament
                         (Case T-431/03)
                                                                                                   (Case T-432/03)
                          (2004/C 47/71)
                                                                                                    (2004/C 47/72)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                            (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the European Parliament was brought before
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities on 22 December 2003 by Liam                          on 22 December 2003 by Jean Dehon, residing in Hagen
O’Bradaigh, residing in Mechelen (Belgium), represented by                (Luxembourg), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne             Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.              address for service in Luxembourg.