CELEX: C2002/131/48
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-112/02: Action brought on 12 April 2002 by Gustaaf Van Dyck against the Commission of the European Communities

C 131/26               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.6.2002
Action brought on 12 April 2002 by Gustaaf Van Dyck                      Action brought on 11 April 2002 by Gustaaf Van Dyck
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       against the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-112/02)
                                                                                                  (Case T-113/02)
                         (2002/C 131/48)
                                                                                                  (2002/C 131/49)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 April 2002 by Gustaaf Van
Dyck, residing at Wuustwezel (Belgium), represented by Mat-              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
thias E. Storme and Ann Gobien, lawyers.                                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 11 April 2002 by Gustaaf Van
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Dyck, residing at Wuustwezel (Belgium), represented by Stefan
                                                                         Corbanie and André Bywater, lawyers.
(1) annul the tacit decision by which the appointing authority
      refused the request submitted to it by the applicant on
      12 February 2001 seeking the adoption by it of a decision          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      concerning the possible application to him of Article
      31(2) of the Staff Regulations, having regard to the               (1) annul the decision adopted by the Commission on
      applicant’s professional experience and training, and, in                 10 January 2002 and notified on 15 January 2002,
      so far as may be necessary, annul the decision of                         rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 14 August 2001;
      15 January 2002, drawn up in French, rejecting the
      applicant’s complaint of 10 September 2001, and, lastly,
                                                                         (2) annul the Commission’s decision of 5 July 2001 whereby
      annul the translation of that decision into Dutch, prepared
                                                                                it decided to take no action in respect of the request
      on 18 February 2002;
                                                                                submitted by the applicant on 1 July 2001 concerning
(2) order the Commission to adopt all measures necessary to                     promotion to grade B 2;
      implement the judgment to be delivered in the present
      case;                                                              (3) annul the Commission’s decision whereby it decided to
                                                                                review the applicant’s staff report;
(3) order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                         (4) order the Commission to pay all the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his claim, the applicant pleads infringement of
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations. According to the
applicant, no decision has to date been adopted in respect of
his request that Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations be
                                                                         The applicant pleads infringement of Article 45(1) and of the
applied in his case. The applicant further pleads infringement
                                                                         first paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations. According
of the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of              to the applicant, the decision of the Promotion Committee did
officials, of the obligation to provide an adequate statement of
                                                                         not contain an adequate statement of reasons. Moreover, the
reasons and of the principle of proper administration.
                                                                         reasons given in the Commission’s response to the applicant’s
                                                                         complaint are unfounded.