Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 10 January 2005 by Eric Gippini Fournier against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-23/05)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 January 2005 by Eric Gippini Fournier, residing in Brussels, represented by A. Theissen, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decisions to award zero 'DG priority points' to the applicant in the 2003 promotion procedure; to reject his appeal to the Promotions Committee seeking the award to the applicant of 'DG priority points' (or of 'appeal' points or of priority points by whatever description); to refuse to award priority points for work in the interest of the institution under Article 9 of the General Provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 2 500 as compensation for non-material loss suffered;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official seconded to the Court of Justice in the interests of the service from 1 March 2002 to 6 October 2003, raises an objection of illegality against the General Provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations because of a lack of comparison of his merits with those of other officials in other Directorates General. He also claims that most of the categories of priority points are illegal because they are contrary to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and to the principle of non-discrimination.

The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 5, 25, 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations, of the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the General Provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, as well as of Article 2(1) and Article 6(3), (4) and (5) of the General Provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant also pleads infringement of the principles of proportionality, non-discrimination, equal treatment and protection of legitimate expectations. The applicant claims finally that there were also procedural irregularities, misuse of powers, failure to state reasons and to inform him of various measures and decisions, as well as manifest errors of assessment.

____________