CELEX: C1996/233/35
Language: en
Date: 1996-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 13 June 1996 by Nicole Hankart against the Council of the European Union (Case T-91/96)

No C 233/20           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10 . 8 . 96
    — the contested Decision purports to regularize ex post           various letters dated 3 and 22 April 1996 the defendant
        facto aid which was granted without prior                      institution informed the applicant that it was disposed to
        notification or authorization , thus enabling the             communicate to the complainants the whole of the replies
        recipient of the aid to benefit from early payment in         given by it, save for two exceptions . The present action has
        contravention of the case-law of the Court of                 been brought against the decisions contained in those
        Justice ,                                                     letters .
— the Commission infringed              essential  procurement
    requirements . In particular:
    — the contested Decision is inadequately reasoned ,
    — the Commission failed to initiate the contentious
        procedure as required by Decision 3855/91 /ECSC,              Action brought on 13 June 1996 by Nicole Hankart against
                                                                                    the Council of the European Union
    — the Commission failed to consult the Consultative                                         ( Case T-91 /96 )
        Committee as required by Articles 19 and 95 of the                                        ( 96/C 233 /35 )
        ECSC Treaty .
                                                                                       (Language of tbe case: French)
                                                                      An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                      brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities on 13 June 1996 by Nicole Hankart, residing
                                                                      at Rhode-Saint-Genèse ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noël
Action brought on 13 June 1996 by Automobiles Peugeot
                                                                      Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of the
SA against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                                                                      Brussels Bar , with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                      the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl , 1 Rue Glesener .
                        ( Case T-90/96 )
                          ( 96/C 233 /34 )
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                (Language of tbe case: French)                        — annul the decision of the selection board in competition
                                                                           Conseil/C/360 of 3 October 1995 refusing to admit her
                                                                           to the second part of the written tests in the
An action against the Commission of the European                          competition ,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 13 June 1996 by
Automobiles Peugeot SA, established in Paris ( France ),              — order the defendant to pay the costs .
represented by Xavier De Roux , of the Paris Bar , with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Jacques Loesch , 1 1 Rue Goethe .
                                                                      The applicant states that she was admitted to the written
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          tests in open competition Conseil/C/360 for the constitution
                                                                      of a reserve for future recruitment of French-language
                                                                      secretaries , and that she did in fact take part in the
— annul the four decisions of the Commission of the
                                                                      compulsory written tests held on 17 November 1995 . On
    European Communities of 3 and 22 April 1996 ,                      12 January 1996 she was informed of the decision of the
                                                                      selection board not to admit her to the second part of the
— order the Commission to pay all the costs .                         written tests , on the ground that she had not participated in
                                                                      all the compulsory written tests . In consequence of the
                                                                      complaint lodged by the applicant, the selection board
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   replied that it appeared , following a detailed investigation,
                                                                      that one of the written tests had not been handed in to the
The applicant, a company marketing Peugeot vehicles in                organizers of the competition who were present and that she
Europe , is the object of four complaints by various                  could not therefore be admitted to the practical tests on a
distributors calling in question the compliance with                  PC . It is the latter decision which is contested in the present
                                                                      case .
Community law of the exclusive and selective standard form
contract for the distribution of Peugeot motor vehicles . In
consequence of those complaints , it provided all the                 The applicant observes that it is for the administration to lay
information requested by the Commission , pointing out                down and implement the detailed practical arrangements
that the information in question was covered in its entirety          for the organization of recruitment competitions . Those
by the obligation of professional secrecy . However, in               arrangements must be laid down in compliance with the
 ---pagebreak--- 10 . 8 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 233/21
principles of equality of treatment between candidates and           The applicant argues, first, that in view of the special needs
of the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of          of the service for which he was appointed, it was necessary
officials . The administration is bound, therefore, to ensure        to recruit a candidate with proven professional experience
that the tests are held in a regular manner and, in the event        enabling him to be immediately operational. The applicant
that an irregularity or incident is found to have occurred, to       maintains that those special needs justify the application of
draw up a report for the competition selection board .               Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations and, consequently, his
                                                                     own recruitment to grade C 4 .
The applicant maintains that, since in the present case the
administration has failed to establish that she did not hand         Secondly, the applicant argues that, in assessing the
in the form containing her answer to thé third written test in       professional experience of the candidates in application of
the competition, that form must be deemed to have been               paragraph IV 'conditions of employment' of the notice of
handed in . She considers that, having failed to produce any         competition, the appointing authority acted contrary to the
evidence to the contrary, the defendant cannot refuse to             principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, and
admit her to the second part of the written tests on the             in breach of its duty to protect legitimate expectations, by
ground that she did not take part in all the tests in the first      using different criteria in the case of the first two persons
part .                                                               placed on the list of suitable candidates (who were recruited
                                                                     to grade C 4 ) from those applied in the applicant's case .
The applicant accordingly pleads that the contested decision
was adopted in breach of the duty to have regard for the             Lastly, the applicant asserts that the contested decision is
welfare and interests of officials and the right to a fair           vitiated by the failure to state relevant reasons or, at the very
hearing, and that it is vitiated by a manifest error.                least, failure to give sufficient reasons, in so far as the
                                                                     Parliament did not disclose the criteria used by the
                                                                     appointing authority to assess whether the applicant's
                                                                     qualifications warranted an appointment to the higher
                                                                     grade in his career bracket.
Action brought on 13 June 1996 by Roberto Monaco
               against the European Parliament
                        ( Case T-92/96 )
                          ( 96/C 233/36 )                            Action brought on 14 June 1996 by Catherine Presle against
                                                                     the European Centre for the Development of Vocational
                                                                                            Training ( Cedefop )
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                              ( Case T-93/96 )
                                                                                                ( 96/C 233/37 )
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 13 June 1996 by Roberto Monaco,                                       (Language of the case: German)
residing at Capellen ( Luxembourg ), represented by
Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of             An action against the European Centre for the Development
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg          of Vocational Training ( Cedefop ) was brought before the
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.             Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                      14 June 1 996 by Catherine Presle, of Berlin, represented by
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalt, of Deringer Tessin Herrmann
                                                                     &C Sedemund, 13 Place des Barricades, Brussels .
— annul the Parliament's decision of 22 August 1995 in so
     far as it appoints the applicant to grade C 5 ,                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
— order the Parliament to pay the costs .                            — annul the decision of the Director of the European
                                                                          Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       ( Cedefop ) of 22 May 1996 ,
The applicant entered the service of the European                    — order the European Centre for the Development of
Parliament in 1980 as a skilled employee in grade D 3 and                 Vocational Training ( Cedefop ) to pay the costs .
was subsequently promoted to grade D 2 ( in 1982 ) and then
to grade D 1 ( in 1991 ). He took part in open competition           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
PE/115/C, organized for the purpose of constituting a
reserve for the recruitment of clerical assistants ( grades C 4      The applicant is an official of the European Centre for the
and C 5 ), and was placed third on the list of successful            Development of Vocational Training ( Cedefop ), the seat of
candidates . By decision of 25 August 1995 , he was                  which was moved on 1 September 1995 from Berlin to
appointed to grade C 5 in the clerical assistant career              Thessaloniki . In the course of the implementation of the
bracket. He contests that decision, maintaining that he               accompanying measures adopted for the organization of the
should have been appointed to grade C 4 .                             social aspects of the move , employees who were unable for