CELEX: C2004/262/84
Language: en
Date: 2004-10-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-311/04: Action brought on 22 July 2004 by José Luis Buendia Sierra against the Commission of the European Communities

23.10.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 262/44
            
         Action brought on 22 July 2004 by José Luis Buendia Sierra against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-311/04)
   (2004/C 262/84)
   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 22 July 2004 by José Luis Buendia Sierra, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc van der Woude and Valérie Landes, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Director General of the Legal Service to award him only one Directorate-General priority point for the 2003 promotion period, which was confirmed and made definitive by the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting his informal appeal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the Appointing Authority's decision not to award him any ‘Promotion Committee for additional activity in the interests of the institution’ special priority points for the 2003 promotion year;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the Appointing Authority's decision to award him a total of 20 points for the 2003 promotion year, the list of merit of Grade A5 officials for the promotion year 2003, the list of officials promoted to Grade A4 in the promotion year 2003 and, in any case, the decision not to enter his name in those lists;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul, so far as may be necessary, the decision rejecting his complaint;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   According to the applicant, the decision to award him only one Directorate-General priority point is due to criteria established in the Legal Service which lead to the award of such points to officials with most seniority in grade, irrespective of their merits. In challenging that decision, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and infringement of Article 2(1) of the general provisions giving effect to Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 6(3) and (4) of the general provisions giving effect to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. In addition, the applicant maintains that that decision offends against the principle of equal treatment and the principle that officials are to have reasonable career prospects, contains a manifest error of assessment and amounts to improper exercise of authority. Finally, he alleges breach of essential procedural requirements in the procedure for the award of points and considering the informal appeal.
   Moreover, the applicant claims that the decision not to award him any ‘Promotion Committee for additional activity in the interests of the institution’ special priority points for the 2003 promotion year is contrary to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, Article 9 of the general provisions giving effect to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and the principle of equal treatment. In his view, that decision is also vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and misuse of power.
   Finally, the applicant challenges the decision to award him a total of 20 points, the list of merit of Grade A5 officials, the list of officials promoted to Grade A4 and the decision not to enter his name in those lists. In this connection, the applicant alleges, first of all, that the other acts challenged in this action are unlawful and also that the rules governing staff appraisal for the period 2001-2002, the general provisions giving effect to Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and the general provisions giving effect to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations are unlawful. In his view, those provisions offend against Articles 25(2) and 45 of the Staff Regulations, the principle that officials are to have reasonable career prospects and the principle of equal treatment. Last, the applicant claims that those decisions are vitiated by lack of competence and breaches of essential procedural requirements.