CELEX: C2002/180/58
Language: en
Date: 2002-07-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-172/02: Action brought on 30 May 2002 by Laurent Druet against Commission of the European Communities

C 180/34              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.7.2002
Action brought on 30 May 2002 by Laurent Druet against                  Action brought on 4 June 2002 by Micole Wieme against
         Commission of the European Communities                                  Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                (Case T-174/02)
                        (Case T-172/02)
                                                                                                (2002/C 180/59)
                        (2002/C 180/58)
                                                                                           (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 4 June 2002 by Micole Wieme,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer, with
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        an address for service in Luxembourg.
European Communities on 30 May 2002 by Laurent Druet,
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Etienne
Marchal and Albert, Coolen, lawyers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 13 July
                                                                              2001 not to accept the applicant’s application for the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   post of Head of Unit DG TAXUD/A/3;
—     annul the decisions of the Promotions Committee not to            —     annul the express rejection of the complaint, receipt of
      include the applicant’s name on the list of officials                   which was acknowledged by the applicant on 8 March
      deemed most deserving of promotion and that of the                      2002;
      Commission not to promote him to Grade B 4 in the
      2001 promotions procedure, according to the publication           —     annul the appointment to the post of Head of Unit DG
      in Administrative Information No 71/2001 of 10 August                   TAXUD/A/3, implying in particular rejection of the
      2001 of the list of officials deemed most deserving of                  applicant’s application for the vacant post;
      promotion and No 72/2001 of the list of officials
      promoted to that grade;
                                                                        —     order, in any event, the defendant to pay the costs.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         In support of the present action, the applicant pleads infringe-
                                                                        ment of Articles 29(1)(a) and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                        irregularity of the procedure, misuse of powers and disregard
                                                                        for general principles of law such as legitimate expectations,
In support of his application, the applicant pleads breach of           equal treatment, the principle that officials should have
the obligation to give adequate reasons and infringement of             reasonable career prospects, equal opportunities and equal
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principles of        treatment of men and women.
equal treatment, that officials should have reasonable career
prospects, good administration and sound management.
                                                                        The applicant claims in particular that by rejecting the
                                                                        application for the post and appointing someone else, the
According to the applicant, the defendant decided to promote            defendant has not applied the Staff Regulations properly or
instead certain officials who were clearly less deserving than          the abovementioned general principles of law, basing its
he.                                                                     decision instead on reasons which are inaccurate both in fact
                                                                        and law.