CELEX: C2001/186/27
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-98/01: Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Filippos Pierros v Commission of the European Communities

C 186/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       30.6.2001
—     Infringement of the principle of equal treatment                    —     Order the defendant to pay the balance of pay corre-
                                                                                sponding to the difference between the remuneration of
      (a)   infringement because the composition of the selec-                  a person in Grade A, Step 3, and that of a person in the
            tion board varied and it was unable to carry out a                  grade above, together with interest thereon at the rate of
            valid comparison of the candidates;                                 8 % per annum as from 1 March 2000;
      (b) infringement because of the time which had passed
            since the original test period of December 1997;
                                                                          —     Order the defendant to pay damages, calculated pro-
      (c)   infringement because the applicant (and he alone)                   visionally on an ex aequo et bono basis, as EUR 1;
            was examined by all the regular and substitute
            members of the selection board;
                                                                          —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
      (d) infringement regarding the ratio of members of
            the selection board appointed by the appointing
            authority to members appointed by the personnel
            committee;
—     Infringement of the rules governing the operation of
      selection boards                                                    Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
      (a)   infringement because the composition of the selec-
            tion board varied;
      (b) infringement because the regular and substitute
            members participated on the selection board simul-            The applicant contests the decision of the appointing authority
            taneously;                                                    to classify him in Grade A 5, step 3. He contends that the
                                                                          appointing authority did not comply with Article 31(2) and
      (c)   infringement because the requirement for impar-               Article 32 of the Staff Regulations. According to the applicant,
            tiality was not observed.                                     the appointing authority took no account of his experience or
                                                                          his exceptional qualifications, nor of the specific requirements
                                                                          of the service, when deciding on his grade and the step.
Claim for compensation
The sum sought by the applicant in compensation amounts to
EUR 50 000 .
                                                                          The applicant also alleges infringement of the principle of non-
                                                                          discrimination by the appointing authority. He was classified
                                                                          in Grade A 5, Step 3, despite his experience or his exceptional
                                                                          qualifications, yet other persons, without exceptional qualifi-
                                                                          cations, were classified in the same grade and step. Likewise,
                                                                          there was discrimination between the applicant and the
                                                                          other persons to whom the appointing authority applied
                                                                          Article 32(2) of the Staff Regulations even though the profile
Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Filippos Pierros v                        of such persons was less exceptional. According to the
          Commission of the European Communities                          applicant, the principle of non-discrimination is not upheld by
                                                                          Articles 31 and 32 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant
                                                                          alleges discrimination between persons who have acquired
                          (Case T-98/01)                                  experience within the institutions and thous who have acquired
                                                                          experience outside the Communities as far as deciding on a
                         (2001/C 186/27)                                  person’s grade and step is concerned.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          The applicant also alleges infringement of the duty to have
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 regard for the interests of its staff, infringement of the rules on
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 4 May              the free movement of persons and, finally, a breach of the
2001 by Filippos Pierros, residing in Brussels, represented by            obligation to state reasons.
the lawyers Georges Vandersanden and Laue Levi.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
—     Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 23 June
      2000 classifying the applicant in Grade 5, Step 3, and, so
      far as may be necessary, annul the implied decision
      rejecting the applicant’s complaint;