CELEX: C2005/006/86
Language: en
Date: 2005-01-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-437/04: Action brought on 1 November 2004 by Holger Standertskjöld-Nordenstam against the Commission of the European Communities

8.1.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 6/44
            
         Action brought on 1 November 2004 by Holger Standertskjöld-Nordenstam against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-437/04)
   (2005/C 6/86)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 November 2004, by Holger Standertskjöld-Nordenstam, residing in Waterloo (Belgium), represented by T. Demaseure, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the Commission's decision not to include the applicant's name on the list, published in Administrative Notices No 84-2003 of 19 December 2003, of the officials most deserving of promotion to Grade A3 in the ‘second round’ of the 2003 promotion procedure;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant was proposed by his Directorate-General for promotion to Grade A3 in the 2003 procedure. The Consultative Committee on Appointments established a list of fourteen officials most deserving of promotion. The applicant was not on it, having been placed fifteenth. The Appointing Authority subsequently decided to add the names of 2 cabinet members to the list. On that basis the applicant alleges, in support of his action, that the contested decision infringes Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, since the merits of those 2 cabinet members were not compared with those of the other officials, including the applicant.
   The applicant also relies on a second plea in law alleging breach of Article 4.2 of the Commission's decision of 19 July 1988. In that context, the applicant alleges that the promotions were made without the prior opinion of the Consultative Committee on Appointments and that the list of the most deserving officials should have included a number of officials' names exceeding the possible promotions by 50 % and not, as in this case, a number of names equal to the number of available posts.
   The applicant pleads, lastly, breach of the duty to state reasons.