CELEX: 62005TN0335
Language: en
Date: 2005-09-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-335/05: Action brought on  5 September 2005  by Susanne Sorensen v Commission of the European Communities

26.11.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 296/26
            
         Action brought on 5 September 2005 by Susanne Sorensen v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-335/05)
   (2005/C 296/57)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties:
   
      Applicant(s): Susanne Sorensen (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)
   
      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision appointing the applicant to the post of assistant, in that it fixes her classification in grade B*3, step 2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision to cancel all the points constituting the applicant's ‘rucksack’;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official of the Commission, had initially been classified in grade C2. she was successful in open competition COM/B/1/02 (at level B5/B4) and was appointed, by the contested decision of 5 August 2004, in grade B*3, step 2. In support of her action, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of the competition notice and also of the vacancy notice, in so far as both notices provided for classification in grade B5 or B4. She claims, in the same context, that there has been a breach of Articles 4, 5, 29 and 31 of the Staff Regulations. Relying on the fact that some successful candidates in the competition were appointed before 1 May 2004 (the date of the entry into force of the amendments to the Staff Regulations) in grade B5 or B4, which correspond to grade B*5 or B*6 under the new denomination, the applicant also claims that there has been a breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. She also contends that the principle that an official should have reasonable career prospects and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations have been breached, since she had a legitimate expectation of being appointed in grade B*5 or B*4. In that context, she claims that Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, which also breaches the principle of legal certainty, is unlawful.