CELEX: C2003/083/50
Language: en
Date: 2003-04-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-21/03: Action brought on 21 January 2003 by "S" against the Commission of the European Communities

C 83/22                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          5.4.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Action brought on 21 January 2003 by ‘S’ against the
                                                                                    Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of the selection board of 23 October
      2002 not to admit the applicant to the oral test in general                                   (Case T-21/03)
      competition CJ/LA/14;
                                                                                                    (2003/C 83/50)
—     annul the express rejection of the complaint lodged by
      the applicant as notified on 9 November 2003 by letter
      from Marc Ronayne;
                                                                                              (Language of the case: French)
—     in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 21 January 2003 by S, represented
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            by Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal,
                                                                           lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant, a candidate in general competition CJ/LA/14,                The applicant claims that the Court should:
organised by the Court of Justice with a view to constituting a
reserve list of Greek-language lawyer-linguists, objects to not
being admitted to the oral test for having failed to obtain the            —     Annul the decision of 11 March 2002 of the Head of the
minimum requisite marks in the first compulsory written                          ‘Occupational disease and accident insurance’ sector
paper (translation of a legal text drafted in French).                           rejecting the applicant’s request to have removed from
                                                                                 the file forwarded to the medical officer all reports drawn
                                                                                 up to her knowledge relating to her ability, efficiency and
                                                                                 conduct;
In support of her arguments, the applicant alleges:
                                                                           —     order the defendant to withdraw from the file forwarded
                                                                                 to the medical officer the originals of the reports in
—     failure to observe the duty to state reasons. The applicant                question, send them to the applicant and destroy all
      claims in that regard that the selection board cannot rely                 copies;
      on the secrecy of its deliberations in order not to fulfil
      the obligation to give reasons to a candidate who requests
      them;                                                                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     irregularities in the conduct of the tests in the competition
      and breach of the principle of equality as between the
      candidates in that, in view of the system for preserving             Pleas in law and main arguments
      the anonymity of the candidates, the applicant is justified
      in wondering whether the written test script attributed to
      her when the tests were being marked is indeed hers. That
      method for ensuring anonymity, which she describes as                The applicant in these proceedings objects to all the reports
      unusual, constitutes, furthermore, a substantive irregu-             relating to her ability, efficiency and conduct, which have to
      larity.                                                              her knowledge been drawn up, not placed in her personal file
                                                                           and communicated to the defendant’s medical officer, being
                                                                           made available to the medical committee called upon to give a
—     infringement of the competition notice and of Article 5              decision on her case in response to a request for her illness to
      of Annex III to the Staff Regulations; manifest error of             be recognised as occupational in origin.
      assessment. The applicant states in that respect that the
      purpose of the test in question was to assess whether
      each of the candidates had perfect command of Greek
      and good knowledge of French on the basis of objective               In support of her claims, the applicant alleges infringement of
      criteria which were identical for each of the candidates.            her right to a fair hearing and of Articles 26 and 43 of the
                                                                           Staff Regulations.