CELEX: C1995/087/36
Language: en
Date: 1995-04-08 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 15 February 1995 by Antonio B. De Menezes against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-29/95)

8 . 4 . 95            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 87/17
Action brought on 15 February 1995 by Antonio B. De                 — order the defendant to pay the costs'.
Menezes against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                        (Case T-29/95 )
                          (95/C 87/36                               The action is directed against the decision removing the
                                                                    applicant from his post, adopted following disciplinary
               (Language of the case: French)                       proceedings, on the ground that he colluded, as one of the
                                                                    persons marking the written papers in open competition
                                                                    EUR/B/21 , with two of the candidates and had knowledge
An action against the Commission of the European                    of the model answers .
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 15 February
1995 by Antonio B. De Menezes, residing in Brussels,                In support of his action, the applicant pleads, first, an
represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels                infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on
Bar.                                                                Human Rights. He considers that the preliminary
                                                                    administrative inquiry was not conducted in such a way as
                                                                    to ensure the necessary objectivity, dispassion and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         impartiality; he further maintains that the opinions
                                                                    delivered by the Disciplinary Board and the contested
— declare the action admissible and well-founded,
                                                                    decision removing him from his post were not adopted
                                                                    within the reasonable period referred to in the
— consequently, annul the decision rejecting _ the
                                                                    aforementioned Article and that the time limits laid down by
     applicant's application for the vacant post COM/030/94
     of Director in Directorate A — Information and                 the first and third paragraphs of Article 7 of Annex IX to the
                                                                    Staff Regulations were not complied with.
     Communication Strategy (DG X/A), and the resulting
     decision to appoint another candidate to that post,
                                                                    The applicant pleads, second, a breach of his right to a fair
— order the. defendant to pay all the costs .                       hearing, in that the file produced to the Disciplinary Board
                                                                    and to the appointing authority was not communicated to
                                                                    him in its entirety.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, a Grade A 3 official assigned to ECHO                The applicant maintains, third, that the disciplinary
( European Community Humanitarian Office ), contests the            measure taken against him is unlawful, inasmuch as the
rejection of his application for the post of Director of            appointing authority did not prove the matters alleged
Directorate    A   —     Information    and   Communication         against him.
Strategy.
                                                                    He further states that the official nominated by the
The pleas and main arguments are the same as those in Case          appointing authority to conduct the preliminary inquiry
T-27/95 .                                                           prior to the referral of the matter to the Disciplinary Board,
                                                                    and the appointing authority itself, uttered threats against
                                                                    him, and that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by an
                                                                    abuse of power.
                                                                    Lastly, the applicant pleads a manifest error of assessment,
Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Philippe Guebels              disregard of the principle of proportionality and breach of
  against the Commission of the European Communities                the obligation to provide a statement of reasons laid down
                                                                    by Article 25 of the Staff Regulations .
                        (Case T-40/95 )
                          ( 95/C 87/37
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Andrew Macrae
Instance of the European Communities on 17 February                 Moat against the Commission of the European
                                                                                              Communities
1995 by Philippe Guebels, residing in Arlon (Belgium ),
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                                       (Case T-41/95 )
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                                       ( 95/C 87/38 )
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
                                                                                    (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
— annul the decision of the Commission of 18 January                Communities was brought before the Court of First
     1995 ,                                                         Instance of the European Communities on 17 February