CELEX: C2006/131/99
Language: en
Date: 2006-06-03 00:00:00
Title: Case F-42/06: Action brought on  13 April 2006  — Sundholm v Commission

3.6.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 131/54
            
         Action brought on 13 April 2006 — Sundholm v Commission
   (Case F-42/06)
   (2006/C 131/99)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant(s): Asa Sundholm (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, avocats)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Declare illegal Article 12 of the Commission Decision of 3 March 2004 on the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations (GIP);
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision establishing the applicant's Career Development Review (CDR) for the period 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay, at this stage of the proceedings, EUR 1 in respect of non-pecuniary loss;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of her action, the applicant submits first of all that the amendments of the GIP infringe the principle of legal certainty and the Official's entitlement to reasonable career prospects, in that the rules for assessing the merits changed in the course of the assessment period.
   Next, the applicant alleges an infringement of the GIP and of the duty to state reasons. In particular, notwithstanding the amendment to the applicant's duties and the lack of precise and definitive objectives and assessment criteria, comments from her CDR 2003 were copied into her CDR 2004, without complying with the conditions laid down by the GIP for a carryover.
   Lastly, the applicant submits that the contested decision contains a manifest error of assessment and inconsistencies between the marks awarded and the comments.