CELEX: C2001/150/66
Language: en
Date: 2001-05-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-72/01: Action brought on 23 March 2001 by Norman Pyres against Commission of the European Communities

C 150/34               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.5.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —     that the Joint Committee took its decision without first
                                                                                hearing the applicant himself; and
—     annul the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Justice         —     that the defendant applied particularly strictly a provision,
      of the EC of 22 May 2000 although only to the extent                      Article 40 of the Staff Regulations, which allows the
      that by that decision the applicant was dismissed with                    appointing authority the possibility, without imposing an
      effect from 1 June 2000 but not that the applicant was                    obligation, of dismissal after two refusals of reinstate-
      not reinstated on 16 July 2000;                                           ment.
—     grant fair compensation, in an amount to be decided by
      the Court of First Instance itself on grounds of equity;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 23 March 2001 by Norman Pyres
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                   (Case T-72/01)
                                                                                                  (2001/C 150/66)
The present action is directed against the decision of the
appointing authority to deem terminated the employment
relationship between the applicant, a lawyer-linguist at the
Court of Justice, and that institution, a decision based on the                              (Language of the case: French)
fact that the applicant did not return to work after a period of
unpaid leave on personal grounds.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 23 March 2001 by Norman Pyres
                                                                          of Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure
The applicant states in that respect that his unpaid leave                Levi, Avocats.
commenced on 1 June 1992. That leave was renewed on three
occasions and expired on 31 May 1995. Pursuant to Article 40
of the Staff Regulations he was offered reinstatement in the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Court for 1 January 1999. The offer, dated 19 November
1998, did not come to the applicant’s notice until 23 Novem-
ber 1998. It therefore provided, in the applicant’s view, an              —     annul the decision of the Selection Board in competition
excessively short period in which to give a positive reply, and                 COM/TA/99 of 31 May 2000 excluding the applicant
so that offer was not accepted. However, the applicant put to                   from the oral tests in the competition;
the personnel division 16 July 1999 as a possible date for
reinstatement, provided the relevant offer was made to him
within a reasonable period (‘délai raisonnable’). His suggestion          —     annul all subsequent operations and acts in the compe-
was adopted, but by letter which did not reach him until May                    tition;
1999 and so the applicant suggested a reinstatement date of
July 2000.
                                                                          —     so far as necessary, annul the decision of the AHCC of
                                                                                15 December 2000 dismissing the applicant’s complaint;
In support of his arguments, the applicant claims:                        —     order the defendant to pay one Euro in compensation for
                                                                                the harm suffered by the applicant;
—     breach of the ‘délai raisonnable’ criterion by the defendant;       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.5.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 150/35
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          regard for the welfare of officials and the principles of good
                                                                         management and sound administration which require that an
The applicant argues first of all that, given that the first written     agent with a background such as his be retained in the
test entailed dealing with a subject which falls within an area          Commission’s employ.
in which he has been working for a long time and in which he
is recognised as being highly qualified and competent, the
mark which he was awarded (21 out of 50, the minimum
required being 25) is beyond comprehension, unless the
Selection Board for the competition committed a manifest
error of appraisal. He adds that, by marking his test in a               Removal from the Register of Cases T-63/00 and
manner that is clearly incorrect, the defendant treated his test                                    T-90/00 (1)
differently as compared to the tests submitted by the other
candidates, which amounts to discrimination.                                                     (2001/C 150/67)
The applicant furthermore relies on infringement of the
obligation to provide reasons and the general principle of                                 (Language of the case: French)
transparency, in so far as the defendant did not provide him
with any adequate or useful information as regards the exact             By order of 23 January 2001, the President of the First
and detailed criteria applied by the Selection Board and as              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
regards the actual application of the evaluation criteria in his         Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
case.                                                                    Cases T-63/00 and T-90/00, Lars Bo Rasmussen v Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities.
Finally, the applicant claims that, by adopting the contested
decision, the defendant failed to fulfil its duty to have                (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00 and OJ C 163 of 10.6.00.