Language of document :

Action brought on 27 July 2007 - Doktor v Council

(Case F-73/07)

Language of the case: French


Applicant: František Doktor (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, R. Albelice and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

annul the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of his probationary period adopted on 24 October 2006 by the appointing authority of the Council, taken together with the decision adopted on 16 May 2007 by the appointing authority dismissing the complaint brought by the applicant;

direct the appointing authority as to the consequences of the annulment of the contested decisions and in particular the possibility of completing a second probationary period in another service or the prolongation of the probationary period with the transfer to a post without head-of-unit responsibility at the end of which there would be a new assessment of the applicant's qualifications;

order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the loss suffered, both professional and financial (salary and associated benefits which he would have received from 1 November 2006 to the date of his re-employment resulting from the annulment of the contested decision) and non-pecuniary (by reference to an indicative sum of EUR 50 000);

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action the applicant relies on four pleas in law, the first of which alleges (i) infringement of Article 34 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, (ii) breach of the duty of have regard to the welfare of officials and (iii) breach of the principle of sound administration. In particular, his probationary period took place in conditions which were unusual and contrary to various internal procedural rules.

The second plea in law alleges breach of the obligation to state reasons, in that the decision to dismiss did not contain explanations and relied on statements which were contradictory and less favourable than those which appeared in the first probationary report.

In the third plea in law, the applicant submits that the decision to dismiss was disproportionate and vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, in that, first, it did not take into account the results of certain personality tests and, secondly, a negative evaluation as head of unit, even were it to be well founded, should have led only to transfer to a post without such responsibilities.

In his fourth plea in law, the applicant relies on breach of the rights of the defence and of the principle of equal treatment, in that the decision to dismiss was taken on the basis of reports adopted without his first being heard and of which the last was finalised in breach of the applicable procedural rules.