CELEX: C1997/074/48
Language: en
Date: 1997-03-08 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 6 January 1997 by Roberto D'Orazio and Pierre Hublau against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-4/97)

8 . 3 . 97          1 EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 74/23
for the post of Head of Unit responsible for relations with          Action brought on 6 January 1997 by Roberto D'Orazio
the member countries of the 'Andean Pact'. According                 and Pierre Hublau against Commission of the European
to the competition notice, the post fell in career bracket                                     Communities
A 5/A 4 .
                                                                                              ( Case T-4/97)
                                                                                                ( 97/C 74/48 )
In support of her claims, the applicant alleges, first of all,
breach of Article 5 (4 ) and Annex I to the Staff                                   (Language of the case: French)
Regulations inasmuch as, by applying to the circumstances
of this case its decision of 19 July 1988 concerning the             An action against the Commission of the European
procedure for filling middle-management posts, the                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
defendant has defined identically the duties corresponding           Instance of the European Communities on 6 January 1997
to posts in different career brackets. In this respect, she          by Roberto D'Orazio, residing in Clabecq ( Belgium ), and
considers that in its judgment in Case T- 10/94 Kratz v.             Pierre Hublau, residing in Tubize ( Belgium ), represented
Commission (') the Court of First Instance did not hold              by Patrice Bonbled, Caroline Sokolovitch and Olivier
that the Commission could define the duties attaching to             Gemberling, of the Brussels Bar.
two basic posts corresponding to separate career brackets
without placing them in rank. On the other hand, it seems
to have ruled that they could be filled at different levels          The applicants claim that the Court should:
where they were not of equal importance.
                                                                     — annul the Commission decision .
Second, the applicant alleges misuse of powers, in so far
as the contested decision forms part of a policy whose               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
objective is the appointment of younger administrators, as
distinct from pursuing the interests of the service . In             The applicants, who are the presidents of the trade-union
addition, in her opinion, the procedure for filling middle­          and employee delegations of the public limited company
management posts is such as to prejudice the necessarily             Forges de Clabecq, an integrated steel undertaking that
objective character of the decision as to the level of the           produces liquid steel and finished flat products, take issue
post to be filled.                                                   with the Commission decision of 18 December 19 96
                                                                     opposing intervention by the Region of Wallonia in favour
                                                                     of the said undertaking.
Last, the applicant alleges breach of the principle that
officials are entitled to reasonable career prospects and of         That intervention was, in particular, to take the form of a
Article 5 ( 3 ) of the Staff Regulations, in that the staff          capital investment of Bfrs 1 500 000 000 by the Societe
policy guidelines and career-bracket profiles drawn up by            Wallonne de Siderurgie to recapitalize the beneficiary
the Commission work to the advantage of some officials               company.
and to the disadvantage of others who do not correspond
to them. Grade A 4 officials, including a majority of
officials with considerable seniority, like the applicant,           In support of their claims, the applicants first submit that
who wish to further their career, have no choice under               there has been a breach of the fundamental principles of
that policy but to apply for Head of Unit posts at grade             Community legality. They point out in this regard that the
A 5/A 4 level, in order to acquire the management                    right to work is a constitutional tradition accepted in all
experience required . By contrast, grade A 5 officials, a            of the Member States . This tradition was encapsulated by
majority of whom are young, enjoy greater career                     the European Parliament, on 12 April 1989, in the
opportunities as a result of the new rules for filling posts.        declaration of fundamental rights and freedoms . The
                                                                     applicants stress that this declaration encompasses
                                                                     collective social rights and social protection . The contested
                                                                     decision, in their view, applies a number of legal principles
In the alternative, the applicant claims that the decision           without taking account of human and sociological factors .
setting the level of the post in question is illegal . In that
regard, she considers that, having regard to the political
importance of the 'Andean Pact' unit, its work load, the             Second, the applicants submit that the Commission has
staff available to it and its budget, the post in issue should       adduced insufficient reasons for its decision to classify the
have been filled at grade A 3 . In the further alternative,          restructuring in question as public aid. In their view, the
the applicant also claims that the vacancy notice is illegal,        Commission did not carry out any economic analysis of
since it is imprecise and contains a manifest error of               the undertaking, and instead merely reproduced a number
 appreciation.                                                       of opinions issued by experts in the Region of Wallonia .
                                                                     Specifically, no economic argument can justify the
                                                                     conclusion that, once the restructuring has been
 (M Case T-10/94 Kratz v. Commission [ 1995 ] ECR 11-1455 .          completed, the Forges de Clabecq company cannot
                                                                     become viable .