CELEX: C1997/252/74
Language: en
Date: 1997-08-16 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 11 June 1997 by Alan Hick against Economic and Social Committee (Case T-176/97)

No C 252/34          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16 . 8 . 97
Action brought on 11 June 1997 by Alan Hick against                  grade, to the President's cabinet for the duration of the
              Economic and Social Committee                          President's mandate . The candidate selected never in fact
                        Case T-176/97)                               took up the post of Head of the division in question, the
                                                                     applicant having performed those duties, first as deputy
                        ( 97/C 252/74 )                              and then as acting Head.
               (Language of the case: French)                        In the circumstances of the case, the applicant refers to the
                                                                     case-law following from the Court's judgment in Case
An action against the Economic and Social Committee of               T-272/94 Brulant ( ] ).
the European Communities was brought before the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 June             (') Case T-272/94 Brûlant v. European Parliament [ 1996 ] ECR-SC
1997 by Alan Hick, residing in Brussels, represented by                  II-1397 .
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Action brought on 11 June 1997 by Odette Simon against
                                                                             the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the decision to promote Wolfgang Junck to                                            ( Case T-l 77/97 )
    Grade A 3 and appoint him to the post of Head of the                                       ( 97/C 252/75 )
    Division for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural
    Affairs in Directorate B — Consultative Work,
                                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
— annul the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature
    for that post,                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 11 June 1997
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                     by Odette Simon, residing in Luxembourg, represented
                                                                     by Ariane Tornel, Thierry Demaseure and Fran^oise
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                                                                     in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
                                                                     Rue de Cess&nge.
The applicant, a Grade A 4 official of the Economic and
Social Committee, challenges the appointing authority's
refusal to appoint him to the post of Head of one of the             The applicant claims that the Court should:
defendant's divisions .
                                                                     — annul the decision refusing to regularize the
The applicant points out that he has been acting as Head                  applicant's administrative position as from May 1966,
of the Division in question since April 1996, following the
death of the previous Head, and that on 18 June 1996 the
defendant published the disputed vacancy notice. By the              — order the defendant to pay ECU 1 by way of symbolic
contested decision, the appointing authority appointed to                 compensation for the non-material damage suffered,
the post in question another person who never took up
the post. That person was subsequently seconded to the               — order the defendant to pay the costs.
'Directorate-General for Consultative Work, Specialized
Department for Delegations' and seconded in the interest
of the service to the post of Chef de Cabinet in the                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Secretariat of the President of the Economic and Social
Committee. Finally, by decision of 23 December 1996, the
applicant was called upon to carry out as acting Head the            The applicant states that she entered the Commission's
duties attaching to the post in issue in this case .                 service in May 1966 . There she remained without
                                                                     interruption until 25 October 1995 . She points out that,
                                                                     although most of her contracts were concluded through
In support of his claims the applicant alleges breach of             the device of intermediary companies and 'organes de
Article 4, first paragraph, and Article 27 of the Staff              tutelle', she always performed her duties for the
Regulations, and misuse of powers. In particular, he                 Commission and under the direct authority of its officials,
considers that the purpose of the contested decision was             in accordance with detailed rules laid down by the
neither to fill the vacant post nor to secure for the                Commission . Her work contributed to the attainment of
institution the services of an official of the highest               the objectives for which the ECSC Treaty made the
standard of ability, efficiency and integrity. In his view, the      Commission responsible and was equivalent to a budgeted
decision was intended to promote another person to                   post. The duties entrusted to her were permanent defined
Grade A 3 with the sole aim of seconding him, at his new             duties of Community public service.