CELEX: C1995/074/27
Language: en
Date: 1995-03-25 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 24 January 1995 by Nicolaos Kyrpitsis against the Economic and Social Committee (Case T-13/95)

No C 74/14            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25 . 3 . 95
 3% the additional rate of permanent partial invalidity             deserving candidates and to include officials from lower
which he suffers following the deterioration of his state of        down the list gof officials proposed unless it was established
health .                                                            that their merits were at least equal to his. He notes that the
                                                                    list of officials proposed is drawn up specifically in order of
                                                                    merit, which implies that the promotion committee
                                                                    unlawfully gave preference to the criterion of seniority over
                                                                    that of merit. It follows, he argues, that there has been a
                                                                    breach of the Staff Regulations and of the proper procedure
                                                                    for promotion.
Action brought on 24 January 1995 by Jose Hodar against
       the Commission of the European Communities                   Lastly, the applicant points out that there are no objective
                        (Case T-12/95 )                             factors to demonstrate why the promotion committee did
                          ( 95/C 74/26                              not include his name on the list in question when the four
                                                                    officials below him on the list of names proposed were
                                                                    included; the same applies to the inclusion on the list of
                 (Language of the case: French)                     officials who were not on the list of officials proposed.
                                                                    Accordingly, he considers that the decision infringed the
An action against the Commission of the European                    obligation to state the grounds on which it was based, as laid
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   down in Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
Instance of the European Communities on 24 January 1995
by Jose Hodar, resident in Redange (France), represented by
Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Sari Fiduciaire
Myson, 1 Rue Glesener.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance               Action brought on 24 January 1995 by Nicolaos Kyrpitsis
should :                                                                     against the Economic and Social Committee
                                                                                            ( Case T-13/95 )
— annul the Commission's decision not to place the                                            ( 95/C 74/27)
     applicant on the list of officials considered most
     deserving of promotion to Grade D1 for the year
     1994,                                                                           (Language of the case: French)
— so far as is necessary, annul all subsequent decisions
     adopted in relation to promotion to Grade D1 for the           An action against the Economic and Social Committee was
     year 1994, and more particularly the decision not to           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
     promote the applicant to that grade,                           Communities on 24 January 1995 by Nicolaos Kyrpitsis,
                                                                   resident in Gendebien, Belgium, represented by Jean-Noel
                                                                    Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                    Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue Glesener.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
                                                                    should :
The applicant claims that he was placed on the list of
officials eligible for promotion to Grade D1 proposed by
DG IX for the promotion year 1994. He was not, however,            — annul the decisions to reject his candidature for vacant
included on the list of the most deserving officials drawn up            posts 2/94, 3/94 and 4/94,
by the promotion committee, whereas the committee did
include on that list some officials placed below him on the        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
list of officials proposed by DG IX as well as some officials
who had not even been proposed.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Firstly, the applicant claims that the inclusion in the list of
most deserving candidates of officials who had not been            In support of his action, the applicant alleges breach of
proposed and who had a 'normal' career profile ( statistical       Article 29 of the Staff Regulations and the vacancy notice
representation of the group of officials eligible for              and also a manifest error of assessment and breach of
promotion, based on the objective factors of age and               Article 45 of the Regulations.
seniority) is contrary to the Commission's decision of
24 November 1976 concerning promotions, which provides             The applicant claims that the appointing authority has
that only 'slow' career officials can be so included.              acknowledged that it transferred an official to one of the
                                                                   vacant posts without consideration of the comparative
The applicant also claims that it was not open to the              merits of all the officials who applied for transfer to that
promotion committee to exclude him from the list of most           post. He concludes accordingly that the decision rejecting
 ---pagebreak--- 25 . 3 . 95           EN                  Official Journal -of the European Communities                              No C 74/15
his application for the three posts in question was adopted in        Pleas in law and main arguments
breach of the order of priority laid down in Article 29 of the
Regulations and in point 6 of the vacancy notice, which               The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
specifically stated that the appointing authority would               Case T-20/94 .
consider whether the posts could be filled by transfer
according to priority.
The applicant also points out that the appointing authority
breached the vacancy notice by selecting candidates by
reference to criteria other than those appearing in the said          Action brought on 6 February 1995 by Gerd Kühle against
notice . He points out that the appointing authority                  Council of the European Union and Commission of the
expressly acknowledged that it had made its choice from                                 European Communities
among agents with occupational experience as messengers                                     ( Case T-16/95 )
who already occupied such posts .
                                                                                              ( 95/C 74/29
Furthermore, the applicant considers that the contested
decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and was                      (Language of the case: German)
adopted in breach of the gurantees given under Article 45 of
the Regulations.                                                      An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities was brought
Finally, the applicant alleges that the defendant failed, even        before the Court of First Instance of the European
when giving a reply expressly rejecting his complaint, to             Communities on 6 February 1995 by Gerd Kühle, Berge
provide the information which would enable him to                     ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Bernd
ascertain whether the contested decision was valid .                  Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Frank
                                                                      Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Munster,
                                                                      with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                      of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
Action brought on 27 January 1995 by Josef Blum against                    SLOM I compensation for the period from 7 May 1986
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                       to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 8 952,80,
                    European Communities                                  together with interest thereon at 8 % from 1 9 May
                                                                           1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;
                         ( Case T-14/95 )
                            95/C 74/28                                2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case
                                                                          T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
                                                                           Commission and also stay the proceedings .
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities was brought                    The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
before the Court of First Instance of the European                    Case T-20/94 .
Communities on 27 January 1995 by Josef Blum, Hallschlag
(Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Bernd
Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Frank
Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Munster,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains.                              Action brought on 6 February 1995 by Spyridoulia
                                                                      Alexopoulou against the Commission of the European
                                                                                              Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                                             (Case T-17/95 )
 1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant                                      ( 95/C 74/30 )
     SLOM III compensation for the period from 19 October
     1985 to 29 July 1993 in the amount of DM 29 355,23 ,                            (Language of the case: French)
     together with interest thereon at 8% from 19 May
     1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;           An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case           Instance of the European Communities on 6 February 1995
     T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and                      by Spyridoulia Alexopoulou, residing in Brussels (Belgium),
     Commission and also stay the proceedings .                       represented by Constantin Nikis, of the Brussels Bar, with