CELEX: C2000/163/48
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-10 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 March 2000 in Case T-95/98, Christos Gogos v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Internal competition — Failing the oral tests — Composition of the selection board — Equal treatment)

10.6.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 163/25
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 23 March 2000                                                        of 24 February 2000
in Case T-95/98, Christos Gogos v Commission of the                     in Case T-145/98: ADT Projekt Gesellschaft der Arbeitsge-
                  European Communities (1)                              meinschaft Deutscher Tierzüchter mbH v Commission of
                                                                                         the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Internal competition — Failing the oral tests
  — Composition of the selection board — Equal treatment)               (TACIS programme — Invitation to tender — Irregularities
                                                                        in the tendering procedure — Action for annulment —
                                                                                     Action for damages — Admissibility)
                         (2000/C 163/48)
                                                                                                 (2000/C 163/49)
                   (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-95/98: Christos Gogos an official of the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Charis N.
Tagaras of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in               In Case T-145/98: ADT Projekt Gesellschaft der Arbeitsgemein-
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyn Korn, 21 Rue de                    schaft Deutscher Tierzüchter mbH, established in Bonn, rep-
Nassau v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                resented by A. Hansen, Rechtsanwalt, Bienenbüttel, Uelzener
Gianluigi Valsesia, J. Currall and Paraskevas Anestis) —                Strasse 8, Bienenbüttel (Germany), against Commission of the
Application for, first, annulment of the decision by which the          European Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and B. Brandtner)
selection board in internal competition COM/A/17/96 refused             — application for, first, annulment of the decision by the
to place the applicant on the list of suitable candidates               Commission not to award the applicant the contract relating
and dismissed the applicant’s complaint and of all related              to Project FD RUS 9603 (‘The Russian Federation: Adapting
implementing acts of the Commission and, secondly, compen-              Russian Beef and Dairy Farming to Restructuring’) and, second,
sation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered — the             compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of                   as a result of the Commission’s conduct — the Court of First
J. Pirrung, President and A. Potocki and A. W. H. Meij, Judges;         Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President,
G. Herzig, Administrator on behalf of the Registrar, has given          J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
a judgment on 23 March 2000, in which it:                               judgment on 24 February 2000, in which it:
1. Annuls the selection board’s decision not to place the applicant     1. Dismisses the claim for an order requiring the Commission to
     on the list of suitable candidates in internal competition              entrust implementation of Project FD RUS 9603 to the
     COM/A/17/96;                                                            applicant as inadmissible;
2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;                               2. Dismisses the remainder of the application as unfounded;
3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                              3. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                              (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.