CELEX: C1996/077/35
Language: en
Date: 1996-03-16 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 16 January 1996 by Themistocles Contargyris against the Council of the European Union (Case T-6/96)

No C 77/ 16           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16 . 3 . 96
The applicant considers that the medical committee 's                responsible for more than 10 years, takes issue with the
reports are unlawful in so far as once the committee had             rejection of his application for the vacant post of
established a direct link between the disease and the                Director-General of DG J. He contends that one reason why
performance of an occupational activity, it had exhausted its        his application was unsuccessful lies in the need to have
task; the committee's breakdown in percentage terms of the           regard for a geographical balance in management posts
various factors which contributed to the emergence of the            within the institution .
applicant's disease exceeded the scope of the question
referred to it and had no basis in the Staff Regulations .           The applicant first of all claims that there has been a breach
                                                                     of Articles 4 and 29 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations inasmuch as
The applicant asserts, finally, that the method of calculation       the contested decisions were taken without prior
used by the defendant infringes the principle of equality.           consultation of the Permanent Representatives Committee.
Firstly, she is discriminated against in comparison with             In the present case, he argues, the Council was notified only
other persons less vulnerable to certain working conditions,         of the proposal by the Secretary-General, which merely
whereas every official must be recognized as fit for work at         refers to the list of posts for the 1995 budgetary year and to
the medical examination before recruitment. Secondly, the            the expediency of appointing the candidate who was
lack of provision in the applicable Community rules as to            ultimately successful to Grade A 1 with effect from 1 June
the method to be followed for evaluating the factors which           1995 , without reference to a specific post. It thus appears
may have led to the emergence of the occupational disease in         that :
itself constitutes a source of discrimination .
                                                                     — the appointing authority, which was not informed of
                                                                         either the list of officials who had applied for the post at
                                                                         issue or of the qualifications required for that post, did
                                                                         not even have the opportunity itself to consider the
                                                                         comparative merits of candidates, as required under
                                                                         Article 45 of the Staff Regulations,
Action brought on 16 January 1996 by Themistocles
 Contargyris against the Council of the European Union              — the Council adopted a decision of appointment which
                        ( Case T-6/96 )                                  was not designed, under the conditions laid down in the
                                                                         Staff Regulations, to fill a vacancy in a specific post,
                          ( 96/C 77/35 )
                                                                    — the decisions rejecting the applicant's candidature and
                (Language of the case: French)                           dismissing his complaint were unlawfully adopted by the
                                                                         Secretary-General, since the appointing authority's
                                                                         powers to fill the post at issue could lawfully be exercised
An action against the Council of the European Union was                  only by the Council .
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 16 January 1996 by Themistocles                      The applicant also takes the view that the terms in which the
Contargyris, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel          notice of vacancy in question was drafted were general and
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the                   did not enable the appointing authority to consider the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at          comparative merits of the various candidates . He also claims
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue Glesener.               that the Secretary-General breached Articles 7 and 27 of the
                                                                     Staff Regulations by treating the need to establish a
The applicant claims that the Court should :                        geographical balance as a determinant criterion.
— annul the decision rejecting his application for the               Finally, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of
    Grade A 1 post in DG J 'Economic and Social                     the duty to state reasons as well as misuse of powers in this
                                                                    case .
    Cohesion, Regional Policy, Social Policy, Employment,
    Social Dialogue, Education and Youth, Culture,
    Audio-Visual',
— annul the Council's decision appointing another
    candidate to Grade A 1 ,                                        Action brought on 22 January 1996 by Antonia Carparelli
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the decision assigning that other candidate to the
    post of Director-General of DG J,                                                          ( Case T-8/96 )
                                                                                                 ( 96/C 77/36 )
— annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the
    Council of 7 November 1995 dismissing the applicant's                            (Language of the case: French)
    complaint,
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 22 January 1996
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                     by Antonia Carparelli, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                    Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of
The applicant, who is a director in Directorate 1 of                the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Directorate-General G of the Council, for which he has been          at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue Glesener.