CELEX: C2004/047/72
Language: en
Date: 2004-02-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-432/03: Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Jean Dehon against the European Parliament

C 47/38                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       21.2.2004
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     Annul the decision of the selection board in competition
The applicant, who was classified in Grade A7, Step 3, upon                     COM/TB/99 to award the applicant an insufficient mark
entering the service of the Commission in September 1986,                       in the oral test to allow him to be entered on the reserve
challenges the decision of the appointing authority, adopted                    list;
following a reconsideration of that classification following the
judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-389/98 P Gevaert v             —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Commission, to reclassify him in Step 1 of Grade A6, instead
of Step 3 of that grade, and revising and setting at new dates
his subsequent classification in Grade A5, Step 2, and A4,
Step 2, and limiting the pecuniary effects of that reclassification
to 5 October 1995.                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance on
In support of his claims, action, the applicant claims that the
                                                                          13 March 2002 in Case T-364/00 Van Weyenbergh, the
Commission has breached:
                                                                          applicant in the present case, as in Case T-161/01, objects to
                                                                          the decision of the selection board in competition COM/TB/
—     the decisions of 6 June 1973 and 1 September 1983 in                99 constituting a reserve list of administrative assistants,
      so far as it omitted to grant the applicant the slightest           senior administrative assistants and principal administrative
      seniority in step, and also Article 5(3) of the Staff               assistants, in Grades B5/B4, B3/B2 and B1 respectively, not to
      Regulations in so far as the Commission applied to the              enter him on the reserve list in that competition on the ground
      applicant a different outcome from that of officials in the         that he was awarded an insufficient mark in the oral test.
      same category;
—     Articles 5(3) and 45 of the Staff Regulations by refusing           In support of his claims, he alleges that there has been a
      to reconstruct his career in grade following his reclassifi-        breach of the principles of non-discrimination and proper
      cation in Grade A6, and breach of the duty to have regard           administration and also a manifest error of assessment.
      to the welfare of officials;
—     Article 62 of the Staff Regulations by limiting in time the         The applicant criticises the method used by the selection board
      pecuniary effects of his reclassification.                          to assess his knowledge of languages and claims, in particular,
                                                                          that he was unable to ascertain whether the questions put
                                                                          during the oral test correspond to the level of the competition
                                                                          B5/B4, B3/B2 or B1.
Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Liam O’Bra-
daigh against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                ties                                      Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Jean Dehon
                                                                                         against the European Parliament
                         (Case T-431/03)
                                                                                                   (Case T-432/03)
                          (2004/C 47/71)
                                                                                                    (2004/C 47/72)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                            (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the European Parliament was brought before
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities on 22 December 2003 by Liam                          on 22 December 2003 by Jean Dehon, residing in Hagen
O’Bradaigh, residing in Mechelen (Belgium), represented by                (Luxembourg), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne             Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.              address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.2.2004             EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 47/39
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      Gibbesi’, ‘Messina-Palermo motorway major project’,
                                                                                 ‘Aragona Favara’ and ‘Piana di Catania’, and all other acts
—     Annul the decision of the European Parliament to move                      resulting from it; Order the Commission of the European
      on to the recruiting phase provided for in Article 29(1)(b)                Communities to pay the costs.
      of the Staff Regulations, namely the organisation of an
      internal competition, in order to fill the post of Deputy
      Head of Division of the French Translation Division
      (Vacancy Notice No 9192);
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The Regione Siciliana has brought an action before the Court
In support of his application, the applicant alleges, first,               of First Instance of the European Communities for the
infringement of Article 233 of the EC Treaty inasmuch as the               annulment of Commission Decision BUDG/C3/EB/WH
Parliament failed to comply properly with the judgment of the              D(2003) 10.5 — 191 No 331997 of 24 October 2003 on
Court of First Instance of 15 November 2000 in Case                        ‘setting off the Commission’s claims against its debts’, included
T-261/99 Dehon v Parliament. The applicant further alleges                 in the table annexed which sets out the ‘set off prescribed on
infringement of Article 29(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations and              7 November 2003’, with reference to amounts relating to the
breach of the principle that officials must have reasonable                European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) applicable to
career prospects.                                                          the ‘Porto Empedocle major project’, ‘Diga Gibbesi’, ‘Messina-
                                                                           Palermo motorway major project’, ‘Aragona Favara’ and ‘Piana
                                                                           di Catania’, and all other acts resulting from it.
                                                                           In support of its action the Regione Siciliana alleges:
Action brought on 24 December 2003 by the Regione
Siciliana against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                           1.    Infringement and/or erroneous application of Articles 71
                             munities
                                                                                 and 73 of Council Regulation No 1605 of 25 June
                                                                                 2002 (1) and Articles 83 and 86 of Commission
                         (Case T-435/03)                                         implementing Regulation No 2342 of 23 December
                                                                                 2002 (2) in so far as the contested decision has set off
                                                                                 against the credits of the Regione Siciliana certain debts
                          (2004/C 47/73)                                         in the form of interest for late payment alleged to have
                                                                                 accrued to the Regione during periods in which, had the
                                                                                 Commission applied the Community rules according to
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                               the law and timeously, no such interest would have
                                                                                 become due;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  2.    Infringement and erroneous application of Articles 73
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       and 187 of Council Regulation No 1605 of 25 June 2002
European Communities on 24 December 2003 by the Regione                          and Article 83 of Commission implementing Regulation
Siciliana, represented by A. Cingolo, avvocato dello Stato.                      No 2342 of 23 December 2002 as regards the starting
                                                                                 date for the application of the compulsory set off of
                                                                                 credits and debits to the Commission;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul Commission Decision BUDG/C3/EB/WH D(2003)                      3.    Misuse of powers on grounds of contradiction between
      10.5 — 191 No 331997 of 24 October 2003 on ‘setting                        subsequent acts and infringement of the principle of
      off the Commission’s claims against its debts’, included in                legitimate expectations in so far as the Commission
      the table annexed which sets out the ‘set off prescribed                   contradicted its own earlier decisions even against the
      on 7 November 2003’, with reference to amounts relating                    Regione Siciliana as regards the lawfulness of using a set
      to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)                           off to extinguish financial obligations similar to those in
      applicable to the ‘Porto Empedocle major project’, ‘Diga                   the present case;