CELEX: C2006/048/70
Language: en
Date: 2006-02-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-413/05: Action brought on  18 November 2005  — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission

25.2.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 48/36
            
         Action brought on 18 November 2005 — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission
   (Case T-413/05)
   (2006/C 48/70)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Carlos Sanchez Ferriz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the applicant's career development report (REC/CDR) for the period 1.7.2001 — 31.12.2002;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant first submits that Article 26 of the Staff Regulations has been infringed, on the ground that his staff report is not physically present in his personal file, but is stored in electronic form and that there is no sign of the first version of that report either in the paper file or in the electronic file.
   The applicant also claims infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, of the General Implementing Provisions for that latter article and of the Appraisal Guide and the special guide for the 2001-2002 exercise, on account of the fact that the appraisers are required by the Commission to comply with a ‘target’ average in respect of appraisal.
   The applicant next submits that the system of merit points, established by the Commission, makes it possible to classify equally a number of officials with varying levels of performance which, in the applicant's view, infringes the principle of equal treatment.
   Lastly, the applicant claims breach of the prohibition of arbitrary procedures and of the duty to state reasons, an abuse of powers, breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, of the rule patere legem quam ipse fecisti (abide by your own rules) and of the duty to have regard for the welfare and/or interests of officials.