Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 2 April 2004 by André Bonnet against Court of Justice of the European Communities

(Case T-132/04)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Court of Justice of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 April 2004 by André Bonnet, residing in Saint Pierre de Vassols (France), represented by Hervé de Lepinau, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

-    Annul the decisions of 11 February 2004 and 4 March 2004, and also the decision appointing another person to the post which should have been filled by the applicant;

-    Hold declare that the recruitment of 4 February 2004 is to take full effect as from 1 March 2004;

-    Order the Court of Justice of the European Communities to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 100,000 for non-pecuniary harm and also the sum of EUR 5,000 per month with effect from 1 March until such time as the applicant actually takes up his duties;

-    In the alternative, should the decision of the Court of First Instance not make it inevitable that the applicant takes up his duties, order the Court of Justice to pay the applicant a total sum of EUR 260,000 plus interest at the statutory rate as from the date of the present application;

-    In any event, order the Court of Justice of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant applied for the post as lecteur d'arrêts in the cabinet of the President of the Court of Justice. He claims that he was chosen following the selection procedure but that, following the contested decisions, he was not appointed to the post.

In support of his action, the applicant claims that the chef de cabinet was not competent to act in connection with the appointment of a law clerk at the Court. The applicant further claims that there has been a breach of essential procedural requirements such as the principle of parallelism of forms, a failure to state reasons and a breach of the rights of the defence.

The applicant also alleges a breach of acquired rights, of the principle of non-retroactivity and of the principle of legal certainty and also a breach of the principle of respect for private life and of the principle of political neutrality. Last, the applicant claims that there has been a misuse of powers.

____________