CELEX: C2001/303/32
Language: en
Date: 2001-10-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-181/01: Action brought on 6 August 2001 by Chantal Hectors against the European Parliament

27.10.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 303/19
Action brought on 6 August 2001 by Chantal Hectors                      The applicant requests that the contested decisions be annulled,
               against the European Parliament                          alleging:
                                                                        —     failure to fulfil the duty to state reasons;
                        (Case T-181/01)
                                                                        —     manifest error of assessment and breach of the interest of
                                                                              the service and of Article 12 of the Conditions of
                        (2001/C 303/32)                                       Employment of Other Servants of the European Com-
                                                                              munities (CEOS), in that there is no concrete, objective
                                                                              and relevant factor to justify the contested decisions;
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        —     breach of Articles 29 and 30 of the Staff Regulations, the
                                                                              vacancy notice, and the legal maxim patere legem quam
                                                                              ipse fecisti, in that the procedure currently applicable to
An action against the European Parliament was brought before                  recruitment of staff in the political groups was not
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                    complied with in the present case;
6 August 2001 by Chantal Hectors resident in Brussels,
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                              —     infringement of the principle of equality between men
                                                                              and women, in that, first, the applicant was discriminated
                                                                              against because she was pregnant, and, second, the
                                                                              principle according to which, all things being equal,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   preference should be given to the recruitment of a female
                                                                              official or member of staff (affirmative action), was not
                                                                              observed, in so far as the candidate appointed to the
—     annul the decision taken by the AHCCE, on a date                        position, who was not even on an equal footing with the
      unknown, to appoint another candidate to the post of                    applicant, is a man;
      administrator with the PPE-DE Group of the European
      Parliament and the decision of unknown date not to                —     breach of the duty to have regard to the interests of staff.
      accept her application for that post and, in so far as
      necessary, annul the decision to reject the applicant’s
      complaint taken on 28 May 2001;                                   Regarding the claim for damages, the applicant states that, as
                                                                        a result of the contested decisions, she has suffered material
—     order the defendant to pay damages, on a fair and                 and non-material damage. The damage is material in so far as
      equitable basis, provisionally calculated at one Euro;            she was not allowed to become a member of the Community’s
                                                                        staff and was consequently denied the benefits of the pecuniary
                                                                        rights connected with recruitment as a member of the
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                         temporary staff and of all the rights and interests in terms of
                                                                        career in the Community civil service. The applicant also
                                                                        suffered non-material damage consisting in the total lack of
                                                                        openness and in the defendant’s refusal to provide her with
                                                                        the reasons for its decisions.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant states that, following the vacancy notice publi-
shed on 10 June 2000, for the recruitment of a temporary
agent for the post of administrator or assistant administrator
of Dutch mother tongue in the European Parliament’s Group               Action brought on 6 August 2001 by IMS Health Inc.
of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and                  against the Commission of the European Communities
European Democrats, she applied for that post. At the end of
the recruitment procedure, she was informed that she had
been listed in first position on the reserve list, but that the                                    (Case T-184/01)
candidate listed in third position had been appointed to the
post in question. The applicant lodged a complaint against                                        (2001/C 303/33)
those decisions (the decision not to appoint her and the
decision to appoint another candidate). The president of the
PPE-DE Group rejected that complaint, indicating that it is for                              (Language of the case: English)
the competent authority to choose from the list drawn up by
the selection board the candidate to be appointed to the vacant
position and that that authority is not obliged to observe the          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
order of the list of suitable candidates drawn up in order of           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
merit.                                                                  European Communities on 6 August 2001 by IMS Health Inc.,