CELEX: C2004/094/141
Language: en
Date: 2004-04-17 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 6 February 2004 by Emmanuel Micha against the Commission of the European Communities

17.4.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 94/52
            
         Action brought on 6 February 2004 by Emmanuel Micha against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-50/04)
   (2004/C 94/141)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 February 2004 by Emmanuel Micha, resident in Roeser (Luxembourg), represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of 4 April 2003 in which the Commission draws up a definitive staff report for the applicant for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 1, as symbolic compensation for damage suffered as the result of the delay in drawing up his staff report and the detriment to his reasonable career prospects;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant in this case challenges the measure by which the Commission drew up his staff report for the period 1999-2001.
   In support of his claims, he alleges:
   
               —
            
            
               The existence of a manifest error of assessment and of inconsistency between the general and analytical assessments in that the assessor did not taken into account the reference framework specific to the applicant's grade. Specifically, the duties which he performed fall within a grade higher than his actual grade;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of the obligation to state reasons;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of the obligation to draw up an annual report within a reasonable period, to the detriment of the applicant's reasonable career prospects.