CELEX: C2006/190/70
Language: en
Date: 2006-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Case F-73/06: Action brought on 3 July 2006 — Van Neyghem v Commission

12.8.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 190/37
            
         Action brought on 3 July 2006 — Van Neyghem v Commission
   (Case F-73/06)
   (2006/C 190/70)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Kris Van Neyghem (Vissenaken, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Jaume and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the director of EPSO's decision of 1 June 2005 not to admit the applicant to the oral test in competition EPSO/A/19/04;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the applicant the symbolic sum of one euro, by way of compensation for his non-material damage;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the applicant an amount to be left to the Tribunal's discretion, by way of compensation for his material damage, consisting of his loss of the opportunity of being appointed to a higher grade;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant first claims infringement of the duty to give reasons and of the principle of equal treatment, in that neither the contested decision nor the administration's response to the applicant's complaint has enabled him to understand the mark he was awarded when the written test was marked and still less the value judgment made on his performance.
   The applicant pleads, in addition, infringement of the principle of sound administration, inasmuch as the evaluation sheet for his written test is too general and imprecise and the copies of that test paper are not marked in any way.