CELEX: C2004/262/81
Language: en
Date: 2004-10-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-308/04: Action brought on 19 July 2004 by Francesco Ianniello against the Commission of the European Communities

23.10.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 262/42
            
         Action brought on 19 July 2004 by Francesco Ianniello against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-308/04)
   (2004/C 262/81)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 July 2004 by Francesco Ianniello, resident in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the appeal assessor's decision of 8 September 2003 approving the applicant's 2001-2002 career development report;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In support of his appeal, the applicant invokes a breach of Article 8 of the general provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant claims that the provision is unlawful because it provides for the appointment of members of the Joint Evaluation Committee whose grade is the same as, or lower than, that of the applicant and who thus do not possess all the guarantees of independence or the requisite powers. The applicant adds that, although he acts on the authority of a staff union, the director of resources or his alternate did not withdraw and took part in the consideration of his appeal.
   The applicant also claims that there was a breach of the duty of confidentiality on the part of the members of the Joint Evaluation Committee, a breach of the principle that the Joint Committee should be impartial and objective, a breach of the rights of defence and of the right to an inter partes hearing, a breach of the principle of sound administration and a manifest error of assessment and inconsistency between the comments and the marks awarded.