CELEX: C2004/059/59
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-11/04: Action brought on 14 January 2004 by Georges Martins against the Commission of the European Communities

6.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 59/37
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               European Communities on 14 January 2004 by Georges
                                                                          Martins, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi,
—     Annul the final decision of 20 December 2002 fixing the             Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers,
      applicant’s classification on recruitment in Grade B 3              with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      with effect from 1 March 1988;
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     Annul the Commission’s decision of 14 April 2003 in so
                                                                                far as it:
The applicant was classified in Grade B, Step 3, upon entering
the service of the Commission in March 1988 and is contesting                   —     revises and fixes, with effect from 1 June 1991, the
the appointing authority’s decision not to reclassify him after                       applicant’s classification on recruitment in Gra-
reconsidering his situation following the judgment of the                             de A 6, Step 1;
Court of Justice in Case C-389/98 P Gevaert.
                                                                                —     revises and fixes, with effect from 1 April 2000, his
In support of his claims, the applicant submits that in                               classification in Grade A 5, Step 3;
reconsidering his file, the Commission took the view that his
professional experience could be taken into account only from                   —     limits the pecuniary effects to 5 October 1005;
May 1970, the date on which he obtained the diploma
rendering him eligible for a Category B post. The applicant               —     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
claims that he obtained his diploma of secondary education in
July 1964. He submits that the decision is vitiated by a
manifest error of assessment and is therefore unlawful.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant also claims that there has been a breach of
Article 5 of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                          The applicant was classified in Grade A 7, Step 3, upon
                                                                          entering the service in June 1991 with the Economic and
                                                                          Social Committee and was transferred to the Commission on
                                                                          1 November 1992. On 31 July 2002, the appointing authority
Action brought on 14 January 2004 by Georges Martins                      of the Economic and Social Committee revised and fixed his
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      recruitment on classification in Grade A 6, Step 1.
                          (Case T-11/04)
                                                                          In the applicant’s submission, the Commission was therefore
                         (2004/C 59/59)
                                                                          required to take the measures to implement that decision with
                   (Language of the case: French)                         effect from 1 November 1992, the date on which he was
                                                                          transferred to its services, and also to reconstruct his career; as
                                                                          it has failed to do so, it has infringed Articles 62 and 45 of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 Staff Regulations and also the principle that an official is
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                entitled to reasonable career prospects.