CELEX: C1999/160/59
Language: en
Date: 1999-06-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-89/99: Action brought on 15 April 1999 by Oliver Valk against the European Parliament

C 160/32              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.6.1999
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Action brought on 15 April 1999 by Oliver Valk against
                                                                                         the European Parliament
— find his action admissible,
                                                                                               (Case T-89/99)
— hold to be unlawful and annul:                                                              (1999/C 160/59)
    (a) the implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint of 9                         (Language of the case: German)
        December 1998 against the act contested under (b)
        below,                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                      the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                      15 April 1999 by Oliver Valk, resident in Berlin, represented
    (b) Decision No 26264/11.9.1998 of the defendant bear-            by Joachim Kayser, Rechtsanwalt, of Körnerstrasse 5, Berlin,
        ing the signature of the Head of the Personnel Service        and having an address service at the latter’s Chambers.
        Mrs Nouaille-Degorce, rejecting his application of 16
        July 1998 regarding payment of the allowance, under           The applicant claims that the Court should order the defendant
        article 2 (4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations,          to withdraw its Decision rejecting the applicant as a candidate
        whereby parents may be treated as if they were                in Competition PE/86/A (OJ 77 A, 12.3.1998) and to admit
        dependent children,                                           the applicant to the competition.
— order the defendant to pay that allowance to the applicant          Pleas in law and main arguments
    for the above period, together with interest for late
    payment at 8 % from the date upon which each monthly              The applicant, who on 12 December 1996 passed the Erste
    payment became due,                                               Juristische Staatsprüfung (first State law examination), in which
                                                                      he was awarded the mark ‘befriedigend’ (‘satisfactory’), applied
— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal costs, and         within the specified time to take part in Competition
    to so order even if the action is dismissed first, because        PE/86/A (1) for the recruitment of English-language assistant
    there are exceptional circumstances within the meaning of         administrators. On 21 October 1998 he was informed — only
    the first subparagraph of article 87 (3) of the Rules             after having himself made an enquiry in that regard — that he
    of Procedure, in particular circumstances of personal             had not been admitted to the competition because the results
    impecuniosity, as set out in the main body of the                 of his final examination were not equivalent to a ‘Second Class
    application and, secondly, because of the applicant was           Honours {degree}, Division One (a “2.1”)’ in Ireland or the
    impelled to bring this action following the failure of the        United Kingdom.
    defendant to reply to his complaint within the four-month
                                                                      The applicant considers that the defendant has failed to attach
    time-limit laid down.
                                                                      sufficient weight to the significance of the Erste Juristische
                                                                      Staatsprüfung in Germany.
Grounds for annulment and main arguments                              In obtaining the mark ‘bedriedigend’ in his final examination,
                                                                      he was amongst the top 36 % of those sitting that examination
                                                                      in Germany in that year. By contrast, the percentage of
                                                                      graduates obtaining a ‘Second Class Honours, Division One
(a) The defendant wrongly took account of the income of the           (a“2.1”)’ grade in Ireland or the United Kingdom was signifi-
    applicant’s two brothers.                                         cantly higher, as is demonstrated, for example, by the fact that
                                                                      in 1997 and 1998 approximately 70 % of those sitting final
                                                                      examinations at the University of Cambridge obtained a
(b) The defendant miscalculated the applicant’s net monthly           ‘Second Class Honours, Division One (a “2.1”)’.
    income.
                                                                      If the final mark obtained by the applicant were to be regarded
(c) The defendant calculated incorrectly the thresholds of 30 %       as fulfilling the criteria referred to, that would amount
    or 20 % on hypothetical pay (full-time employment),               to discrimination between German law students and other
    instead of on actual pay (part-time employment).                  students, who are normally awarded higher final marks.
                                                                      For the purposes of participating in European Parliament
                                                                      competitions, candidates from Germany should not be
(d) The defendant failed to apply article 10 of the general
                                                                      required to have obtained very much better final grades than
    implementing provisions.
                                                                      candidates from other Member States.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 77 A, 12.3.1998.