CELEX: C1998/007/59
Language: en
Date: 1998-01-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 8 August 1997 by Lars Bo Rasmussen against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-234/97)

C 7/20               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10. 1. 98
Action brought on 8 August 1997 by Lars Bo Rasmussen               Ð the defendant could not take into consideration the
  against the Commission of the European Communities                   merits of the applicant because throughout the
                       (Case T-234/97)                                 promotions exercise the relevant authorities did not
                                                                       have access to his file, which was lodged at the Court
                          (98/C 7/59)                                  of First Instance. The file was thus unavailable to the
                                                                       Director-General of DG V, the Restricted Group, and
               (Language of the case: French)                          the Promotions Committee, during the period in
                                                                       question,
An action against the Commission of the European                   Ð contrary to the principle of non-discrimination and to
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      the requirements laid down in Article 45 of the Staff
Instance of the European Communities on 8 August 1997                  Regulations, the appointing authority compared his
by Lars Bo Rasmussen, residing at Dalheim                              merits only with officials in DG V who were eligible
(Luxembourg), represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the                   for promotion, and
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at his Chambers at 180, route de Longwy.
                                                                   Ð within the meaning of Article 45 of the Staff
                                                                       Regulations, consideration of the merits of officials
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            constitutes the determining criterion in matters of
                                                                       promotion. It is only by way of an alternative that the
                                                                       appointing authority may take into consideration the
Ð annul the decision of the Commission not to promote
                                                                       age of candidates, or their seniority in grade, or length
    him to grade A 4 in the 1996 promotions procedure,
                                                                       of service. Accordingly, the MoeÈl' method, applied by
                                                                       the Commission in order to establish the list of most
Ð annul the decision of the Commission to promote the                  eligible officials, is unlawful on the ground that it does
    85 persons chosen from the list of officials most                  not give sufficient weight to the merits of officials
    deserving of promotion to grade A 4,                               eligible for promotion.
Ð order the defendant to pay monetary compensation in
    respect of non-material damage suffered in the order
    of Lfrs 500 000 or any other amount which the Court
    may deem fair and equitable,
                                                                   Action brought on 12 August 1997 by Nicolaos Progoulis
                                                                     against the Commission of the European Communities
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                                     (Case T-237/97)
                                                                                              (98/C 7/60)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                   (Language of the case: French)
The applicant, an official at grade A 5, objects to the
appointing authority's refusal to promote him to the next          An action against the Commission of the European
grade in the 1996 promotions procedure.                            Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 12 August
                                                                   1997 by Nicolaos Progoulis, residing in Brussels,
In support of his claims he relies on breach of Article 45
                                                                   represented by Vassilios Akritidis and Konstantinos
of the Staff Regulations and of the general legal principle
                                                                   Adamantopoulos, of the Athens Bar, with an address for
of equal treatment.
                                                                   service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of ArseÁne
                                                                   Kronshagen, 12, boulevard de la Foire.
In that regard, the applicant claims in particular that:
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð the defendant's decision to authorize the taking into
    account of seniority in grade previously acquired as a         Ð annul the decision of the defendant of 13 May 1997
    temporary agent in respect of the promotions                       rejecting his application to be regraded in step 2 of
    procedure and its extension by analogy to officials                grade B 1 with retroactive effect from 1 March 1983
    who have transferred to another category is contrary               and for the financial consequences of the regrading
    to the applicable Staff Regulations provisions and that,           applied for to be taken into account and calculated
    on that ground, the promotions exercise in question as             retroactively from 1 March 1983, together with
    a whole is unlawful. In his opinion, there is no                   compound legal interest at the annual rate of 10 %,
    legislative provision in the Staff Regulations
    concerning the taking into account of the length of            Ð order the defendant to pay to the applicant the
    service of an official as a temporary member of staff in           amount corresponding to the financial consequences of
    order to determine his seniority. To claim otherwise               the regrading applied for, calculated retroactively from
    would amount to treating other servants as officials to            1 March 1983, together with compound legal interest
    the extent that there would no longer be any sense in              at the annual rate of 10 %, and
    having provisions of the Staff Regulations which
    distinguish between other servants and officials,              Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.