CELEX: C2002/156/66
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-133/02: Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Pravir Kumar Chawdhry against Commission of the European Communities

C 156/36               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   29.6.2002
Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Pravir Kumar                           In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
Chawdhry against Commission of the European Com-
                             munities
                                                                          —    infringement of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations;
                         (Case T-133/02)                                  —    infringement of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations;
                         (2002/C 156/66)                                  —    breach of the principle of non-discrimination;
                                                                          —    breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
                    (Language of the case: French)                             officials;
                                                                          —    breach of the rules on the free movement of workers;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                —    breach of the obligation to state reasons.
European Communities on 18 April 2002 by Pravir Kumar
Chawdhry, residing in Sangiano (Italy), represented by Georges
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, avocats.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the authority empowered to                    Action brought on 25 April 2002 by Miguel Tejada
      conclude contracts of employment (AECCE) of 2 May                   Fernández against the Commission of the European Com-
      2001 classifying the applicant in Grade A 6, step 3, and,                                       munities
      in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 14 December
      2001, served on 8 January 2002, rejecting the applicant’s                                   (Case T-134/02)
      complaint;
                                                                                                  (2002/C 156/67)
—     order the defendant to pay the balance of the salary
      consisting in the difference between the remuneration
      corresponding to classification in Grade A 6, step 3,                                 (Language of the case: French)
      and the remuneration corresponding to a higher grade,
      together with default interest at the rate of 5,75 % per
      annum, with effect from 1 April 2001;
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     order the defendant to pay damages provisionally asses-             European Communities on 25 April 2002 by Miguel Tejada
      sed, ex æquo et bono, at EUR 1;                                     Fernández, residing in Woluwé-St-Etienne, Belgium, represent-
                                                                          ed by Lucas Vogel, lawyer, with an address for service in
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —    annul the decision of the appointing authority of 10 Janu-
                                                                               ary 2002, notified to the applicant on 15 January 2002,
                                                                               rejecting the applicant’s claim of 3 October 2001 for
The applicant, a temporary agent employed by the Com-                          annulment of the decision refusing him promotion to
mission, contests the decision of the AECCE classifying him in                 grade B2 for the 2001 promotions year, and annulment
Grade A 6, step 3.                                                             of the proposals for promotion to that grade;
                                                                          —    in so far as is necessary, annul the decision refusing the
                                                                               applicant promotion to grade B2 for the 2001 pro-
The applicant claims that the AECCE ought to have specifically
                                                                               motions year, and the proposals for promotion to that
assessed the possible application of Article 31(2) of the Staff
                                                                               grade;
Regulations to the applicant and that such an assessment
should have led to the actual application of that provision to
the applicant, that is to say to his classification in Grade A 5.         —    order the defendant to pay the costs.