CELEX: C1995/268/60
Language: en
Date: 1995-10-14 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 30 August 1995 by Mary Karagiozopoulou against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-166/95)

14 . 10 . 95          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 268/29
borrowed by him in relation thereto, since his invalidity           The applicant claims that the Court should :
pension is insufficient to enable him to continue to meet his
monthly outgoings. The applicant is also suffering serious          — annul the decision of the selection board for internal
non-material damage as a result of the illness afflicting him            competition COM/B/9/93 awarding the applicant a
and as a result of having been retired on the ground of                  lower mark for her oral test than the minimum required
invalidity.                                                              and excluding her from the list of successful
                                                                         candidates,
Lastly, the applicant maintains that there is a causal link
between the Commission's wrongful conduct and the                   — order the defendant to pay the costs .
alleged material and non-material damage, since, if he had
not been exposed, over a period of nearly twenty years, to an
environment contaminated by asbestos, he would not have             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
contracted the illness and could have pursued his career in
the normal way until retirement age, continuing to receive          The applicant pleads, first, a breach of the principles of
the whole of his remuneration until then .                          equality of treatment and non-discrimination . She observes
                                                                    in that regard that, by reason of the total lack of knowledge
The applicant further asserts that, in the course of the            of the Greek language on the part of the members of the
procedures in respect of invalidity and the recognition of the      selection board, she was obliged to undergo the oral test
illness as an occupational disease, the Commission was at           through the intermediary of an interpreter, which meant
fault in a number of respects, thereby entitling him to             that the conditions in which the oral test took place in her
compensation . He considers that the various instances of           case, and thus the methods used for marking that test, were
irregularity and illegality by which those procedures were          not the same as those for the other candidates . She also
vitiated prevented him, with effect from January 1990 or, at        maintains that, in consequence of the adoption of that
the very latest, June 1991 , from receiving the benefits due to     procedure , the members of the selection board were unable
him under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations .                     personally to assess two of the appraisal factors, namely the
                                                                    clarity and 'synthesis' of the answers given in her native
                                                                    tongue to the questions put to her in the course of the oral
                                                                    test .
Action brought on 30 August 1995 by Mary                            The applicant also maintains that the marks awarded to her
Karagiozopoulou against the Commission of the European              for the oral test are so different from the assessments made
                          Communities
                                                                    in relation to her in her most recent staff report and in the
                       ( Case T-166/95 )                            proposal for her promotion to grade C2 , and from the
                         ( 95/C 268/60                              marks awarded for the drafting test, that they must of
                                                                    necessity be vitiated by a manifest error of assessment .
               (Language of the case: Frencb)
                                                                    Lastly, the applicant considers that the decision whereby,
An action against the Commission of the European                    despite the defendant's undertaking to provide for 60 posts
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   with a view to upgrading category C posts to category B
Instance of the European Communities on 30 August 1995              posts, the number of candidates admitted to the oral tests
by Mary Karagiozopoulou, residing in Brussels, represented          was limited to 120 constitutes evidence not only of a breach
by Ariane Tornel and Thierry Demaseure, of the Brussels             of the obligation laid down in the fifth paragraph of
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices       Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations but also of an
of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl , 1 Rue Glesener.                          intention to limit in advance the number of successful
                                                                    candidates .