CELEX: C1996/269/61
Language: en
Date: 1996-09-14 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 22 July 1996 by Jean-Claude Séché against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-112/96)

No C 269/28           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 9 . 96
— the Commission has manifestly misinterpreted the law in            — Appointment not in the interest of the service : The
    respect of Article 86 of the EC Treaty with the result that          applicant argues that, in disregard of Article 7 of the
    conclusions in paragraphs 30 to 37 of its decision were              Staff Regulations, the appointment of the successful
    defective .                                                          candidate did not satisfy the needs of the service but was
                                                                         decided purely for formal reasons and in the interest of
                                                                         the person concerned . After her promotion, the
                                                                         candidate appointed retained the same functions she had
                                                                         previously performed at grade A 3 , which did not
                                                                         correspond to the vacancy notice .
Action brought on 22 July 1996 by Jean-Claude Seche
  against the Commission of the European Communities                 — Sex discrimination : The lack of reasons stated for the
                       ( Case T-l 12/96 )                                decision invites the suspicion that one of the
                         ( 96/C 269/61                                   Commission's reasons was a purely sexual preference ,
                                                                         prohibited by the principle of equal treatment between
                                                                         male and female workers .
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                     — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment: The
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        applicant maintains that he was discriminated against by
Instance of the European Communities on 22 July 1996 by                  reason of his nationality, age and sex.
Jean-Claude Seche, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar , with an address for service in       — Misuse of powers and abuse of process : The
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort               appointment of the successful candidate was not
Rheinsheim .                                                             motivated in any way by the interest of the service , but
                                                                         was made firstly in the interests of the person concerned
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             and , secondly, in order to achieve the doubling of the
                                                                         number of women at A 2 level in the Commission in
— annul the Commission 's decision appointing the                        1996 .
    successful candidate on 22 May 1996 to the post of
    Principal Legal Adviser, grade A 2 , in the Legal                — Infringement of the obligation to have due regard to the
    Service ,                                                            interests of officials .
— annul the decision, implicit in the contested decision
    referred to above , not to appoint the applicant to fill the     — Breach of good faith and the principle of the protection
    post of Principal Legal Adviser in the Legal Service ,               of legitimate expectations : The applicant maintains that
                                                                         he was in a situation in which the Community
— as the legal consequence of the annulment of the above                 administration had given him reasonable grounds to
    decisions, order the Commission to amend the                         expect that he would be promoted to grade A 2 .
    applicant's career bracket with effect from 1 June
    1996 ,                                                           As regards the claim for damages, the applicant argues that
                                                                     the decisions he seeks to have annulled , and which are
— order the Commission to pay the applicant ECU 1 in                 clearly in breach of duty having regard to their
    symbolic compensation for non-material damage,                   unlawfulness, have caused him significant non-material
                                                                     damage for which the Commission must make
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            compensation .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant makes the following arguments tn support of
his action :
— Lack of comparative examination of the merits : The
    applicant questions whether the candidates ' merits were
    objectively compared before the decisions were made,             Action brought on 26 July 1996 by Biscuiterie-Confiserie
    and adds that the procedure followed offered no                  LOR and Confiserie du TECH against the Commission of
    guarantees that Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and                           the European Communities
    the principle of equal treatment were complied with . He                                 ( Case T-l 14/96 )
    considers, moreover, that comparison of the merits                                         ( 96/C 269/62 )
    could not have led the Commission to prefer the
    successful person 's candidature to his own .
                                                                                    (Language of the case: French)
— Failure to state reasons : The applicant maintains that the
    Commission infringed Article 25 of the Staff
    Regulations, in that no reasons are stated in the                An action against the Commission of the European
    contested decisions .                                            Communities was brought before the Court of First