CELEX: C2001/108/51
Language: en
Date: 2001-04-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-34/01: Action brought on 14 February 2001 by Anna Maria Roccato (Mrs Pinson) against the Commission of the European Communities

C 108/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.4.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The measure to which the contested decision relates is laid
down by Article 14 of the Norma Foral No 5/1993 of the                   The applicant, an official classified in grade C 1, step 8, is
Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia of 24 June 1993 concerning              challenging the refusal of the selection board in internal
urgent fiscal measures in support of investment and the                  competition COM/PB/99 for movement from category C to
promotion of economic activity, which provides for an                    category B to admit her to the oral test in that competition.
exemption from corporation tax for certain newly formed
undertakings.                                                            She points out in that regard that, by letter of 8 March 2000,
                                                                         the chairman of the selection board informed the applicant
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                 that she had not been admitted to the oral test because of her
advanced in Case T-30/01.                                                marks in the written test, which, despite being higher than the
                                                                         minimum required (30 out of 50), were not such as to place
                                                                         her within the 170 best candidates, who were the only ones
                                                                         permitted to take part in the oral test. In order to be included
                                                                         amongst those 170 best candidates, it was necessary to obtain
                                                                         a mark totalling at least 30.25.
Action brought on 14 February 2001 by Anna Maria
Roccato (Mrs Pinson) against the Commission of the
                    European Communities                                 In support of her application, the applicant pleads:
                         (Case T-34/01)                                  —     infringement of the obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                               reasons and of the general principle of transparency. The
                        (2001/C 108/51)                                        applicant states in that connection that the principle of
                                                                               transparency precludes a refusal to provide a candidate in
                   (Language of the case: French)                              a competition with documents and answers relating to
                                                                               matters outside the ambit of an assessment of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      comparative merits of the candidates;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 February 2001 by Anna Maria                   —     infringement of the rules governing the work done by the
Roccato (Mrs Pinson), represented by Georges Vandersanden                      selection board, and the commission of a manifest error
and Laure Levi, lawyers.                                                       of assessment in the present case;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and
                                                                               misuse of powers in the present case. In that regard, the
—     annul the decision of the selection board in competition
                                                                               applicant, who reached the end of her career bracket on
      COM/PB/99 of 8 March 2000 excluding the applicant
                                                                               1 February 1988, speculates that the reason for her
      from the oral test in the competition;
                                                                               exclusion from the oral test may lie in the fact that the
—     annul all steps taken and to be taken in the competition;                selection board in the competition may have been biased
                                                                               in favour of younger officials having, in consequence,
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                    longer-term career prospects than she.