Action brought on 30 January 2006 - Canteiro Lopez v Commission

(Case F-9/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Rui Canteiro Lopez (Lisbon, Portugal) and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 13 October 2005 not to add the applicant's name to the list of officials judged to be the most deserving and not to promote him to Grade A4 in the 2000 promotion exercise.

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 21 December 2000, the applicant submitted a complaint against the decision not to promote him to Grade A4 in the 2000 promotion exercise. On 2 July 2001, the defendant allowed that complaint and informed the applicant that action had been taken to finalise his staff report, but this was not done. As a result, the applicant submitted an application for information about the steps taken as a result of that decision of 2 July 2001. The defendant, after having acknowledged that the 1995-1997 and 1997-1999 staff reports had not yet been finalised, offered to set the applicant's 1997-1999 report at the same level as the report which he had obtained for the period 1991-2001.

Although the applicant refused that offer, the defendant nevertheless concluded the applicant's staff report for the period 1997-1999 and decided not to add his name to the list of officials judged to be the most deserving, and not to promote him to Grade A4 in the 2000 promotion exercise.

In support of his action, the applicant first submits that that decision is invalidated inasmuch as it was taken without there being any lawfully finalised staff reports for the periods at issue. The defendant is accused of effectively committing a breach of its administrative duty by not ensuring that the applicant's staff reports for the period between 1 July 1995 and 30 June 1999 were drawn-up at the appropriate time.

The applicant also maintains that the defendant carried out the consideration of the applicant's comparative merits in an improper manner, inasmuch as it made use of alternative criteria, such as age and length of service, which may only be applied where the officials eligible for promotion are of equal merit, a condition which was not met in this instance. The contested decision therefore infringes Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and the principle of equal treatment.

____________