Action brought on 16 December 2005 -De Meerleer v Commission

(Case F-121/05)

Language of the case: French


Applicant: Michel De Meerleer (Ophain-Bois-Seigneur-Isaac, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelet, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of the selection board for Open Competition EPSO/A/19/04 not to accept the applicant's candidature and, consequently, not to admit him to the competition or to mark his written test;

annul the selection board's decision of 30 May 2005 refusing to make a determination in respect of the applicant's request for a reconsideration of 18 May 2005 and also annulment of any act consecutive upon or relating to that decision;

in so far as necessary, annul the appointing authority's decision of 2 September 2005, notified to the applicant on 14 September 2005, rejecting the applicant's complaint, which was registered on 13 June 2005 under reference R/493/05;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant participated in Open Competition EPSO/A/19/04 for the establishment of a reserve list for the recruitment of administrators in grade A7/A6 in the specialist fields of civil engineering, engineering, chemistry/chemical products/industrial chemistry and air transport. Following his success in the pre-selection tests, he sent EPSO his application together with the requisite supporting documents. After examining the file, the selection board excluded the applicant from the competition on the ground that his professional experience was inadequate.

The applicant maintains that the competition selection board breached Articles 29(1)(a) and 30 of the Staff Regulations, Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations and the competition notice, in so far as a manifest error of assessment vitiates the evaluation of the applicant's professional experience and the decision not to accept his candidature. Furthermore, the decision contains only inadequate reasons.

The applicant further criticises the competition selection board and the appointing authority for having breached Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, Article 7 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations and also the competition notice and the principle of equal treatment for candidates. In particular, the use of unreliable computer systems in correspondence with the applicant gave rise to discrimination against the applicant by comparison with other candidates.

As an ancillary point, in case the Tribunal should not grant his application for annulment of the contested decisions, the applicant contends that the award of compensation would constitute the most appropriate form of reparation for the non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage that those decisions caused to him.