CELEX: C1999/246/68
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-97/99: Action brought on 20 April 1999 by Michael Chamier against the European Parliament

28.8.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 246/33
first, suspension of the acts preventing the transfer of part of         three posts of Director-General (grade A1) were declared
the applicant’s remuneration to the home-purchase savings                vacant on 25 June 1998: that of Director-General of the
account opened in her name with a financial institution                  Directorate-General for Finance and Financial Control (the
established in France and, second, authorisation to transfer             new DG VIII), that of Director-General of the Directorate-
immediately the sums which should have been or should                    General for Administration (DG VI) and that of Director-
shortly be transferred — the President of the Court of First             General of the Directorate-General for Personnel (DG V).
Instance made an order on 1 June 1999, the operative part of
which is as follows:                                                     The applicant, a grade A2 official of the Parliament, applied
                                                                         for the first post. Apart from that application, the Secretary-
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.                    General received three other admissible applications and two
                                                                         further applications which were inadmissible under Article
2. Costs are reserved.                                                   29(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations — including, in particular,
                                                                         that of Mr L.V. (Chef de cabinet of the President of the
                                                                         Parliament and an official of the Commission).
                                                                         Mr L.V. was appointed on 16 July 1998. The applicant was
                                                                         never officially informed of that decision, nor, a fortiori, of the
                                                                         reasons on which it was based. By letter of 16 September
Action brought on 20 April 1999 by Michael Chamier                       1998 he was informed by the Head of the Personnel Division
               against the European Parliament                           that his application for the post had been rejected.
                          (Case T-97/99)                                 The applicant maintains that:
                         (1999/C 246/68)                                 — the procedure was solely designed to formalise a decision
                                                                             — namely, to appoint Mr L.V. to the vacant post — which
                                                                             had already been adopted before the commencement of
                   (Language of the case: French)                            the procedure. The choice of Mr L.V. was the result of a
                                                                             political agreement and did not result from any proper
An action against the European Parliament was brought before                 exercise of the powers conferred on the appointing
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                   authority in accordance with Article 29 of the Staff
20 April 1999 by Michael Chamier, residing in Luxembourg,                    Regulations;
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the           — the conditions in which the appointing authority decided
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL 30 Rue de Cessange.                         to open the exceptional recruitment procedure and to
                                                                             choose Mr L.V. are vitiated by various infringements of
                                                                             procedural rules and of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision taken by the appointing authority                   — Mr L.V. does not satisfy the conditions laid clown in the
     on 16 July 1998 appointing Mr L.V. to the post of                       vacancy notice, since his qualifications and abilities are not
     Director-General of the Directorate-General for Finance                 those which are required and demanded for such an
     and Financial Control, the decision of the same date                    important position in the field of finance and financial
     rejecting the application for that post submitted by the                control;
     applicant and, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
     dated 21 January 1999 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;          — the applicant’s curriculum vitae, on the other hand, fully
                                                                             satisfies the requirements of the post. Consequently, the
— request the defendant to produce the notes sent by the                     appointing authority has committed a manifest error of
     Secretary-General to the Bureau on 22 December 1997                     assessment and has infringed Articles 7 and 27 of the Staff
     and 13 and 16 July 1998 (documents PE 265.377/BUR,                      Regulations;
     PE 271.309/BUR and PE 271.309/BUR/ADD), together
     with the file relating to Mr L.V.’s application for the post        — the appointing authority has violated the principles of
     of Director-General of the Directorate-General for Finance              sound management and of good administration; and
     and Financial Control;
                                                                         — there has been a breach of the general obligation to provide
— order the defendant to pay damages provisionally quanti-                   a statement of reasons.
     fied, on an equitable basis, in the sum of 100 000 euros;
                                                                         As to the claim for damages, the applicant maintains that the
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  alleged loss is non-material and that it results from violation
                                                                         of general principles of law and of the rules governing the
                                                                         recruitment procedure and from disregard of the interests of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the service. His legitimate expectation, if not that he would be
                                                                         appointed to the post, at least that proper consideration would
Following the decision to split up the Parliament’s Directorate-         be given to his application for it, has been seriously prejudiced.
General V (Personnel, the Budget and Finance) and to create
two new directorates-general (the Directorate-General for the
Budget and Finance and the Directorate-General for Personnel),