CELEX: C1999/226/66
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-119/99: Action brought on 18 May 1999 by P.E. Hoyer against the Commission of the European Communities

7.8.1999                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 226/37
European Communities on 17 May 1999 by Beatrice Bonaiti                  Action brought on 18 May 1999 by P.E. Hoyer against the
Brighina, represented by Mirco Rizzoglio and Franco Colussi                       Commission of the European Communities
of the Milan and Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service
ir Luxembourg at the Chambers of Franco Colussi, 36, Rue de                                       (Case T-119/99)
Wiltz.
                                                                                                  (1999/C 226/66)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
— Annul the decision not to admit Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina
     to the oral tests in Competition COM/B/18/96.                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 European Communities on 18 May 1999 by P.E. Hoyer
                                                                         residing in Hoeilaart (Belgium), represented by G. van der Wal,
                                                                         of the Bar of The Hague, having an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — declare internal competition COM/LA/2/89 void, or in any
The applicant contests her exclusion from the list of candidates             event annul the decision of the selection board, as notified
admitted to the oral test in Competition COM/B/18/96 for                     to the applicant by letter of 15 February 1999. not to
transfer from Category C to Category B, grades 5 and 4.                      include the applicant on the list of suitable candidates;
According to the Notice of Competition, the 120 candidates
achieving the highest marks in the written test would be
invited to take the oral test, provided that they achieved the           — order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
pass mark required in the written test.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant stases that the representative of the Chairman of
the Selection Board informed her that she had been awarded a             The applicant, who was at the time a temporary Commission
mark of 26 out of 50 but that candidates had to have a                   official (interpreter), was unsuccessful in the above internal
minimum mark of 33 to be included amongst the 120 best                   competition and was dismissed.
candidates. Consequently, although she had been awarded the
pass mark, she was told that her marks were not sufficient for           His action against the decision of the selection board was
her to be admitted to the oral tests.                                    upheld (Case T-43/91). The decision dismissing him was
                                                                         set aside on the ground that it was based on an invalid
                                                                         selection-board decision (Case T-51/91).
The applicant lodged a complaint, seeking annulment of the
decision not to admit her to the oral test, of the list drawn up         The Court of First Instance did not annul the internal
on the basis of the written tests, of Section VI, paragraph (C),         competition as such, but stated in paragraph 65 of its judgment
of the Notice of Competition and of the final list of successful         in Case T-43/91 that Mr Hoyer’s rights would be properly
candidates in the competition.                                           safeguarded ‘if the appointing authority were to seek an
                                                                         equitable solution for him’.
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:
                                                                         The applicant objected to the re-opening and/or continuation
                                                                         of the internal competition.
— breach of Article 28(d) of the Staff Regulations applicable
     to officials and of Article 5(2) and (5) of Annex III thereto       Contrary to its undertakings, however, the Commission did
     (Competitions) by Section VI, paragraph (C), of Notice of           re-open and continue the internal competition. In protest, the
     Competition COM/B/18/96; and                                        applicant participated in the tests, but was unsuccessful.
— breach and misapplication of Section VI, paragraph (A),                The grounds of his application for a declaration annulling the
     final subparagraph, of the Notice of Internal Competition           internal competition are as follows:
     relating to the said competition.
                                                                         — infringement of the principle of equality and breach of
                                                                             essential procedural requirements;
The applicant also pleads a manifest error of assessment,
failure to state reasons and misuse of powers.                           — breach of Article 233 EC (ex Article 176);
                                                                         — breach of express agreements.