CELEX: C2006/154/66
Language: en
Date: 2006-07-01 00:00:00
Title: Case F-56/06: Action brought on  9 May 2006  — Chassagne v Commission

1.7.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 154/29
            
         Action brought on 9 May 2006 — Chassagne v Commission
   (Case F-56/06)
   (2006/C 154/66)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodriques, Y. Minatchy and A. Jaume, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the applicant's career development report for 2004;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the Directorate-General's decision allocating priority points during the 2005 promotion exercise;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the appointing authority's decisions of 30 January 2006 and 14 March 2006 rejecting the applicant's complains against the abovementioned decisions;
            
         
               —
            
            
               award nominal damages of one euro for professional harm and one euro for non-pecuniary harm arising from the adoption of the contested decisions;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant relies first of all on the unlawfulness of the General implementing provisions of Articles 43 and 44 of the Staff Regulations.
   He claims, next, that there has been a breach of a number of procedural requirements, such as the rights of the defence, the obligation to state reasons and compliance with the rules of procedure.
   The applicant further maintains that the administration has made a number of manifest errors of assessment, notably in the context of considering comparative merits and in allocating priority points.
   Last, in the applicant's submission, the defendant has infringed the principle of sound administration.