CELEX: C2006/060/100
Language: en
Date: 2006-03-11 00:00:00
Title: Case F-125/05: Action brought on  19 December 2005  — Tsarnavas v Commission

11.3.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 60/54
            
         Action brought on 19 December 2005 — Tsarnavas v Commission
   (Case F-125/05)
   (2006/C 60/100)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Vassilios Tsarnavas (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the appointing authority's decision of 1 April 2005 rejecting the applicant's request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations (Request No D/007/05);
            
         
               —
            
            
               in so far as necessary, annul the Commission's decision of 7 October 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint (No R/488/05);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay compensation of EUR 72 000 for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant in consequence of the irregularities or repeated service-related faults committed by the Commission in the context of the 1998 and 1999 promotion exercises;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the Commission's decisions rejecting the request and the complaint which he had submitted in order to obtain compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to him by the Commission's conduct in the context of the 1998 and 1999 promotion exercises. In order to contest the measures taken by the Commission in respect of him, the applicant had initiated four pre-contentious procedures and four contentious procedures, which culminated in either the withdrawal or the annulment of those measures.
   The pecuniary damage follows from the fact that, in order to ensure that his interests were fully defended in the context of the pre-contentious procedures, the applicant was required to consult a legal adviser. The non-pecuniary damage follows from the situation of uncertainty in which the applicant found himself for a number of years and also from his loss of confidence in the institution.