CELEX: C1999/333/77
Language: en
Date: 1999-11-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-213/99: Action brought on 24 September 1999 by Luc Verheyden against the Commission of the European Communities

20.11.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 333/35
Action brought on 24 September 1999 by Luc Verheyden                      Action brought on 28 September 1999 by Manuel Tomás
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      Carrasco Benı́tez against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                   Communities
                         (Case T-213/99)
                                                                                                  (Case T-214/99)
                         (1999/C 333/77)
                                                                                                  (1999/C 333/78)
                    (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                    (Language of the case: French)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 September 1999 by Luc Ver-
heyden, residing at Angera (Italy), represented by Eric Boigelot,         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.               European Communities on 28 September 1999 by Manuel
                                                                          Tomás Carrasco Benı́tez, residing in London, represented by
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique
                                                                          Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
— annul the note drawn up on 10 November 1998 by                          Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL 30 Rue
    D. Van Hattem, Head of Service in the Infrastructure                  de Cessange.
    Directorate for the Ispra site, addressed to the applicant,
    by which, inter alia, he described the management by the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
    applicant over the last two years of a depository situated
    in building 76b as ‘not up to any acceptable standard’;               — annul the decision of the selection board in competition
— annul the decision of 22 June 1999, drawn up by Mr Erkki                     COM/T/R/ADM/A/98 not to admit the applicant to the
    Liikanen, Member of the Commission, in his capacity as                     competition;
    appointing authority, and brought to the applicant’s notice
    on 25 June 1999, rejecting the complaint lodged by the                — annul the decision of the selection board in joint vacancy
    applicant on 16 February 1999;                                             notices/internal competitions COM/R/5179/98, COM/R/
                                                                               5182/98, COM/R/5183/98, COM/R/5188/98 and COM/
— order the defendant to pay all the costs in any event;                       R/5190/98;
— order that the defendant be paid compensation for non-                  — order the defendant to pay the costs.
    material damage fixed, on an equitable basis, in the sum of
    LIT 25 000 000.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant, a Grade B official assigned to the European
The applicant contests the manner in which one of his                     Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, contests the
superiors has addressed to him certain criticisms concerning              decision of the selection boards in the abovementioned
his efficiency and output in the performance of his duties.               competitions not to admit him to the tests in those compe-
                                                                          titions. The competitions in question form part of the new
In support of his claims, he pleads:                                      policy of the Commission, aimed at filling each year a certain
                                                                          number of permanently established posts within the research
— infringement of Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations,            budget.
    misuse of powers and abuse of process in the present case,
    and breach of the rights of the defence. In that regard, he
    considers, in particular, that it is intolerable that the             In support of his claims, the applicant pleads infringement of
    appointing authority should be able to categorise his                 Articles 4, 27 and 29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations and breach
    output and efficiency without adhering to the procedures              of the principle of equal treatment, as well as a manifest error
    laid down in the Staff Regulations;                                   of assessment in the present case.
— infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and                 On the basis of those pleas, the applicant maintains, in
    breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate               particular, that:
    expectations, together with failure to fulfil its duty to have
    regard for his welfare and interests. He maintains in that
                                                                          — the criterion requiring candidates to have completed a
    regard, first, that the defendant, contrary to what it seeks
                                                                               minimum of ten years’ service as a servant of the European
    to demonstrate, has not introduced the necessary measures
                                                                               Communities, within the meaning of the Conditions of
    for his further training and instruction and, second, that
                                                                               employment of other agents, is unlawful, inasmuch as it
    the defendant has not taken all necessary and adequate
                                                                               may have the effect of eliminating from possible recruit-
    measures to protect him against the defamation which he
                                                                               ment persons who possess qualifications which are equiva-
    has suffered.
                                                                               lent to, or even higher than, those of the candidates
                                                                               admitted to the competition (competition COM/T/R/
                                                                               ADM/A/98);