CELEX: C2004/106/170
Language: en
Date: 2004-04-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-110/04: Actionbrought on 16 March 2004 by Paulo Sequeira Wandschneideragainst Commission of the European Communities

30.4.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 106/86
            
         Action brought on 16 March 2004 by Paulo Sequeira Wandschneider against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-110/04)
   (2004/C 106/170)
   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 16 March 2004 by Paulo Sequeira Wandschneider, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the report on the development of career in respect of the reference period running from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the applicant's complaint of 11 July 2003;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay damages and compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant ex aequo et bono of up to EUR 2 500;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in the present case is challenging the validity of his progress report (rapport d'évolution de carrière (REC)) in respect of the reference period running form 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002.
   In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
   
               —
            
            
               infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, its general implementing provisions and the Guide to Assessment;
            
         
               —
            
            
               breach of the duty to provide reasons and the existence, in the present case, of a manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers;
            
         
               —
            
            
               failure to observe the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and breach of the principle of sound administration;
            
         
               —
            
            
               breach of the rights of defence and failure to observe the time-limits laid down in the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations.