CELEX: C2005/281/37
Language: en
Date: 2005-11-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-132/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 2005 — Casini v Commission (Commission officials — Promotion — 2002 procedure — Non-inclusion on the list of officials promoted to Grade A 6 — Duty to state reasons — Consideration of the comparative merits — Manifest error of assessment — Probative nature of subsequent statements of members of the personnel service — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

12.11.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 281/20
            
         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 2005 — Casini v Commission
   (Case T-132/03) (1)
   
   (Commission officials - Promotion - 2002 procedure - Non-inclusion on the list of officials promoted to Grade A 6 - Duty to state reasons - Consideration of the comparative merits - Manifest error of assessment - Probative nature of subsequent statements of members of the personnel service - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
   (2005/C 281/37)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant(s): Paola Casini (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, lawyer)
   
      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris, Agent, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)
   Application for
   annulment of the decision of the Commission not to promote the applicant to Grade A 6 in respect of the 2002 promotion procedure, and damages for material and non-material damage suffered
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Annuls the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2002 not to promote the applicant to Grade A 6 in respect of the 2002 promotion procedure;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 2 000 to compensate for non-material damage she has suffered;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Dismisses the remainder of the action;
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Orders the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.