CELEX: C2004/284/40
Language: en
Date: 2004-11-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-331/04: Action brought on 11 August 2004 by Stephen Stork against the Commission of the European Communities

20.11.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 284/20
            
         Action brought on 11 August 2004 by Stephen Stork against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-331/04)
   (2004/C 284/40)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 August 2004 by Stephen Stork, Chaumont-Gistoux (Belgium), represented by Bernd Arians, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the Commission's decision of 5 May 2004 on the applicant's complaint and the Commission's decision of 10 December 2003 classing the applicant in Grade A7;
            
         
               —
            
            
               require the Commission to adopt a new decision on the applicant's grade, including a full statement of reasons;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant contests the Commission's decision to class him in Grade A7, Step 3. He alleges errors of assessment in the application of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations.
   The applicant submits that the contested decision fails to take account of facts relating to the quality of the applicant's professional experience which are of fundamental relevance to classification and that there was a failure to recognise the relevance of those facts in recruiting the applicant to his first post and to take proper account of the defendant's recruitment needs.
   Moreover, the applicant alleges a failure to exercise discretion, infringement of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of equal treatment, procedural errors and failure to give a proper statement of reasons.