CELEX: C2004/035/30
Language: en
Date: 2004-02-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-411/03: Action brought on 9 December 2003 by Georges Herbillon against the Commission of the European Communities

C 35/18                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         7.2.2004
Action brought on 17 December 2003 by Antonio Aresu                         Action brought on 9 December 2003 by Georges Herbil-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                        lon against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-407/03)                                                             (Case T-411/03)
                          (2004/C 35/29)                                                              (2004/C 35/30)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                             (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities by Antonio Aresu, represented by                       European Communities on 9 December 2003 by Georges
Sergio Diana, avvocato.                                                     Herbillon, residing in Arlon (Belgium), represented by Nicolas
                                                                            Lhoëst, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
A)    annul the following two decisions:
                                                                            —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                                  23 December 2002 confirming the applicant’s initial
      —     the express decision of the appointing authority                      classification in Grade A 7;
            contained in Chantal Graykowski’s email of
            31 March 2003 stating that the the applicant’s
                                                                            —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
            application in connection with the programme
            ‘Rotation 2003/Decentralisation (Phase 3)’ had been
            rejected;
      —     the implied decision of the appointing authority                Pleas in law and main arguments
            of 18 December 2003 rejecting the applicant’s
            complaint lodged on 18 June 2003 concerning that
            decision;
                                                                            The applicant was classified in grade A 7, step 3, upon taking
                                                                            up his duties with the Commission in September 1986. The
B)    order the Commission to pay the costs.                                applicant challenges the appointing authority’s decision, after
                                                                            reexamination of that classification following the judgment
                                                                            delivered by the Court of Justice in Case C-389/98 P Gevaert v
                                                                            Commission, not to reclassify him.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
In this action the applicant challenges the rejection of his                —     breach of the duty to provided reasons, in so far as the
application for a transfer to an external delegation in connec-                   response of the defendant to his complaint merely
tion with the programme ‘Rotation 2003/Decentralisation                           consisted of a theoretical and altogether general account;
(Phase 3)’.
                                                                            —     the existence, in the present case, of a manifest error of
                                                                                  assessment consisting in both a misinterpretation of the
In support of his claims, the applicant’s sole argument relates                   precedent set in Alexopoulou and in a stereotypical and
is that there was a complete failure to provide a statement of                    superficial analysis of his own circumstances, so far as
reasons, and a consequent infringement of the second para-                        concerned the criteria relating to exceptional qualifi-
graph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.                                     cations and the special needs of the service.