CELEX: C2005/229/71
Language: en
Date: 2005-09-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-284/05: Action brought on 14 July 2005 against the Commission of the European Communities by Christos Michail

17.9.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 229/33
            
         Action brought on 14 July 2005 against the Commission of the European Communities by Christos Michail
   (Case T-284/05)
   (2005/C 229/71)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 July 2005 by Christos Michail, resident in Brussels, Belgium, represented by Charalambos Meidanis, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested acts/decisions;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order that financial reparation be made for non-material damage in the amount of EUR 90 000 (ninety thousand);
            
         
               —
            
            
               make an order as to costs as laid down by law.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who is a Commission official, seeks the annulment of his career development report for the period from 1.4.2003 to 31.12.2003 and an order that financial reparation be made for the non-material damage which he claims to have suffered. He claims in support of his application that the report in question did not contain a description of his post, since, moreover, as he claims, during the period in question he simply did not occupy any post. He also claims that the report in question did not even contain a description of his individual objective goals to be attained and did not contain any reasoning for the points he was given; it was drawn up by a body and person having no competence to do so; it was not drawn up on the basis of his actual work but was based on the assessments of an earlier staff report. In the light of all the foregoing the applicant claims that there was infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and all the implementing provisions, infringement of Article 12a of those Staff Regulations, which refers to psychological harassment, manifest error of assessment as regards the facts, non-existent or otherwise insufficient reasons for the acts challenged, misuse of powers on the part of the Commission and infringement of the principle of fair and equal treatment of staff and the principle of sound administration.