CELEX: C2002/003/68
Language: en
Date: 2002-01-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-262/01: Action brought on 19 October 2001 by Jürgen Sachau against the Commission of the European Communities

C 3/40                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.1.2002
Action brought on 19 October 2001 by Jürgen Sachau                       The applicant submits that the decision is defective in form
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     and in content, inter alia because the Commission exceeded the
                                                                         period allowed for replying to the application and the decision
                                                                         contains no statement of reasons. Furthermore, the decision is
                         (Case T-262/01)                                 contrary to the principles of proper administration and equal
                                                                         treatment, to the proper exercise of discretion and to the duty
                                                                         to have regard for the interests of officials.
                          (2002/C 3/68)
                   (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Action brought on 17 October 2001 by Petros Mavromi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               khalis against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 19 October 2001 by Jürgen                                                       ties
Sachau, resident in Kassel, Germany, represented by Dörte
Fouquet, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                                  (Case T-263/01)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                        (2002/C 3/69)
—     declare that the decision dated 19 December 2000 sent                                 (Language of the case: Greek)
      by the defendant to the applicant is inoperative;
—     declare that the defendant is to reimburse to the applicant
      all costs and expenditure which he has incurred as a               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      result of the period allowed for replying to the application       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      for continued employment, which expired on 19 Decem-               European Communities on 17 October 2001 by Petros
      ber 2000, being clearly exceeded by the defendant in that          Mavromikhalis, a Commission official, resident in Brussels,
      it did not formulate the decision until 19 December                represented by Nikolaos Korogiannakis, Lawyer, with an
      2000;                                                              address for service in Brussels.
—     declare that the applicant is to be engaged by the
      defendant with immediate effect on a contract of unlimi-           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      ted duration retroactively in Post COM/R/5698/00-
      A8/A5 ST or in a comparable post in accordance with                —    grant the application as well founded in law and in
      the applicant’s professional qualifications;                            substance;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings            —    annul:
      including the applicant’s costs.
                                                                              —     the implied decision of the European Commission
                                                                                    by which it rejected the applicant’s complaint seek-
                                                                                    ing reconsideration of his placement in Grade A 5
                                                                                    instead of Grade A 4 on the basis of Article 31(2) of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                     the Staff Regulations;
                                                                              —     in the alternative, the implied decision of the
The applicant submitted his candidature for Post                                    European Commission by which it rejected the
COM/R/5698/00-A8/A5 ST at the Joint Research Centre in                              applicant’s complaint seeking placement at Step 2
Ispra. At that time he was engaged in that post on a fixed-term                     with additional seniority of 5,5 months instead of at
contract. His contract expired on 30 September 2000 and,                            Step 1 on the basis of Article 32 of the Staff
since it had been indicated to him internally that he would be                      Regulations retroactively from the date of his
able to continue in the post, he decided to remain in Ispra in                      appointment;
order to be available to be called by the Commission. He did
not receive the Commission’s rejection until the decision of             —    order the defendant to pay the costs irrespective of the
19 December 2000.                                                             outcome of the case.