CELEX: C2003/251/32
Language: en
Date: 2003-10-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-282/03: Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Paul Ceuninck against Commission of the European Communities

18.10.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 251/17
In support of her application, she relies inter alia on the              Pleas in law and main arguments
following pleas:
                                                                         The applicant submitted his candidature for a vacant post as
                                                                         counsellor at the European Anti-Fraud Office. The applicant's
—    failure to have regard to the purpose of optional observa-          candidature for the post was rejected.
     tions in so far as the fact that she was being ‘encouraged
     to resume tasks of coordination and distribution of work
     in the Pool’ is in no way a justification of the assessment         In support of his action, the application claims that there has
     of ‘very good’ under the headings concerned;                        been a breach of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations, an abuse
                                                                         of power and of procedure, a manifest error of assessment, a
                                                                         breach of essential procedural requirements in drawing up the
                                                                         vacancy notice, a breach of the principle of institutional impar-
—    inconsistency in the marks;
                                                                         tiality and of the principle that an institution must have regard
                                                                         to the welfare of its officials, a breach of Part 1, Point 2 of the
                                                                         Commission's Decision of 21 December 2000, a breach of
—    failure to have regard to the observations of the Reports           the rights of the defence, in particular the right to be heard,
     Committee;                                                          of the principle of equality of arms, of the principle of equality,
                                                                         of the principle that an institution must have regard to the
                                                                         welfare of its officials, of the principle that officials should
—    that she was the victim of harassment at her workplace;             have reasonable career prospects and of the principle that
                                                                         a decision must contain a statement of reasons. Last, the
                                                                         applicant claims that the Director General of OLAF was not
—    that she had amply and undeniably demonstrated a                    competent to make a determination in respect of the
     capacity for mobility and versatility. It would therefore           complaint and to reject it.
     be in keeping with the Staff Regulations for that merit to
     be specifically referred to in the staff report at issue.
                                                                         Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Rosalinda Aycinena
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Paul Ceuninck
    against Commission of the European Communities                                                  (Case T-284/03)
                        (Case T-282/03)                                                             (2003/C 251/33)
                        (2003/C 251/32)                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
An action against the Commission of the European                         of the European Communities on 5 August 2003 by Rosalinda
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance               Aycinena, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien
of the European Communities on 8 August 2003 by Paul                     Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal,
Ceuninck, residing in Hertsberge (Belgium), represented by               lawyers.
G. Vandersanden and A. Finchelstein, lawyers.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —      annul the decision of 26 March 2003 revising the appli-
                                                                                cant's classification on recruitment classifying her at the
—    annul the entire selection procedure following notice of                   first step of Grade LA 6;
     vacant post COM/051/02 and annul that notice;
                                                                         —      order the defendant to pay the costs.
—    annul the decision to appoint another person taken by
     the appointing authority on 13 September 2002 and also,             Pleas in law and main arguments
     consequently, the decision rejecting the applicant's candi-
     dature for that post;                                               In support of her claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
                                                                         obligation to provide reasons for decisions, manifest error of
                                                                         assessment, breach of the principle that officials should have
—    order the Commission to pay the costs.                              reasonable career prospects (Article 5(3) of the Staff