Action brought on 16 April 2009 - Martinet v Commission

(Case T-163/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Yvon Martinet (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-L. Fourgoux, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul the decision rejecting Mr Martinet's candidature for the post of alternate member of the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency;

Order the European Commission, Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, Pre-selection Committee for the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency, to carry out a genuine and in-depth examination of the file containing Mr Martinet's application, as reparation in kind for the damage suffered as a result of the loss of an opportunity;

In any case, order the European Commission, Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, Pre-selection Committee for the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency, to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks annulment of the Commission decision rejecting his candidature for the post of alternate member of the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) on the ground that his candidature had not been considered, since it had not been received by the section responsible for the selection process, as a result of being sent to the Vice-President of the Commission, Mr G. Verheugen, at an address different from the exact address stated in the call for expression of interest, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2008 C 41A, p. 8).

In support of its action, the applicant, with regard to the application for annulment, claims that:

the contested decision does not satisfy the obligation to state reasons which constitutes an essential formality which must be complied with;

the contested decision is based on a substantive factual inaccuracy, the candidature having been sent to the address stated in the call for candidatures;

the principles of sound administration and of equal opportunities for candidates were infringed, because the applicant's candidature was not examined.

____________